Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Post Offices (Deprived Urban Areas)

Meg Munn: What help he is giving to post offices in deprived urban areas.

Phil Hope: Among a range of Government measures to support post offices, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has set up a £15 million fund for 2002 to 2005 to support post offices at risk of closure in deprived urban areas. To date, 194 post offices in the most deprived 10 per cent. of wards have been supported. We anticipate that this number will rise to 350 on completion of the fund. A further £210 million is available from the Department of Trade and Industry for managing the long-term sustainable future of the urban post office network.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and welcome the fund. However, Jordanthorpe post office, in a deprived area of my constituency, was assessed for the fund and met the criteria, but was told that there were insufficient funds for it to benefit from the scheme. That post office is enormously important in supporting a whole community and shopping area. Will he give me further advice on what Jordanthorpe post office should do to keep providing the service that it does?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is a strong champion of the residents of her constituency. I fully understand her concern for ensuring that her urban post offices stay open and I shall listen carefully to her representations. She may not know that since 1997 the Government have invested £2 billion in the post office network. I urge her, as a specific action, to encourage the Jordanthorpe post office to investigate the option of gaining access to the additional funding for the urban post office network that has been made available by the DTI.

Roy Beggs: Consultation on the closure of post offices in Northern Ireland has become a farce. There is obviously a clear policy on closures. Waterloo road post office in Larne in my constituency was signalled for closure. A neighbouring business man was prepared to provide new post office accommodation and to buy out Waterloo road post office's rights and interests with the full support of his community. That was refused and he received no support from Postwatch. Is any appeal open to my constituents as we had accepted the closure of several other small post offices?

Phil Hope: The ODPM does not provide support for post office networks in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which I shall convey to my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and ensure that he, his constituents and the business he describes get the fullest possible reply to those concerns.

Tony Lloyd: Some farce is also associated with the closure programme in England. In my constituency—one of the most genuinely deprived inner-city communities in the land—more than 40 per cent. of the post offices will be closed. It would help enormously if the Post Office came clean about how the process works and opened up the books so that when people tell me that post offices are viable yet the Post Office still closes them, we know whether it is the Post Office that is abusing the rules or simply a misunderstanding of the position. I think that the Post Office is abusing the rules.

Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I will certainly convey them to my ministerial colleagues in the DTI who have responsibility for the post office network. It is true to say that the previous Government presided over 3,500 unstructured closures, with no plans for the long-term sustainability of the network. This Government are providing a huge investment in both the rural and the urban network to ensure that there is a planned process and a sustainable future for post offices in both urban and rural areas.

Karen Buck: I have recently been told that 50 per cent. of my post office network faces closure by this time next year. Although I fully understand the economic necessity for a reduction in the network, does my hon. Friend realise the impact that that has on urban communities as well as rural communities? Will he urge the Post Office to think carefully about what it does, especially in the complex social situation of London, where rich and poor areas jostle side by side, and ensure that it accepts that post offices are part of the lifeblood of local communities in urban villages, as they are in rural communities?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the urban post office network is essential. That is why the Government are investing over £180 million to fund compensation payments to sub-postmasters whose offices close, and we are investing substantial extra resources through the urban reinvention programme that I mentioned earlier. Post offices play an important part in community life, and without a rational approach the unplanned closures that occurred under the last Conservative Administration would continue, leaving damaging gaps in the network. The DTI is working hard to ensure that there is a planned process for ensuring the long-term sustainability of post offices in urban as well as rural areas.

Decent Homes

David Taylor: What Government policy is in relation to the rights of local authority tenants to have homes which meet the decent standard criteria by 2010; and if he will make a statement.

Keith Hill: We are determined to make good the appalling neglect of council homes by the last Tory Government, who left us with a colossal £19 billion backlog in repairs and modernisation, and 2 million substandard homes. We have now reduced the number of substandard homes by 1 million and are on target to bring a further 600,000 homes up to the decent homes standard by 2008. Where councils can achieve the decent homes standard through mainstream funding they are perfectly entitled to do so; otherwise the most effective and efficient way to secure the extra funding and better standard of management required to deliver decent homes will be through a choice of public finance initiative, stock transfer or arm's length management organisation.

David Taylor: Many on these Benches benefited from an affordable, well maintained home rented from an accountable local authority, and we welcomed the reassurance of the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), that the right to a decent home would be extended even to those who retained their local authority landlord. Why has this Minister torn up that commitment, allowing home investment only through the PFI, ALMOs or stock transfer even where tenants prefer direct investment from their local authority to coerced privatisation? Does not the modernisers' mantra of "a right to choose" apply to our core supporters?

Keith Hill: Well, if my hon. Friend wants to put it in those terms, he can, but I believe that the decent homes programme is precisely designed to deliver to our core supporters. My hon. Friend misuses language when he talks about privatisation. Under the PFI and ALMO arrangements the stock remains council-owned stock and the tenants remain council tenants. The housing associations, which are a key lever for bringing in the huge new sums to deliver the decent homes programme, are not-for-profit organisations. Fifty per cent. of all tenants are in housing associations, which on the whole deliver homes that are of a higher standard and afford tenants greater satisfaction.

Robert Key: Has the Minister seen yesterday's report from the UK Noise Association, called "Antisocial Housing"? Why do the Government continue to refuse to include noise insulation in their decent homes-plus standard?

Keith Hill: Ambient noise is included in the decent homes standard.

Ken Purchase: I welcome and understand the Minister's concern about the disrepair of our stock and that which we inherited, but the solutions that he proposes are seen as departmental proposals that are mean and spiteful— bad-tempered, even—and almost a betrayal of the wishes of many tenants who want to remain with their local council. For a Labour Minister to be denying them that right seems to me perverse.

Keith Hill: But I put it to my hon. Friend that we have so far had some 130 ballots on various aspects of the decent homes programme, and in over 80 per cent. of cases tenants have voted for the various forms of PFI, stock transfer or ALMO on offer; they have gone for what my hon. Friend seems to regard as a spiteful option. Where a ballot fails the Government are anxious to work with the local authority to examine the ways forward. That is occurring in Birmingham, close to my hon. Friend's constituency, where good progress is being made.

Caroline Spelman: Birmingham, Hodge Hill borders my constituency, and in an effort to help my neighbour—[Laughter.] I might remind Labour Members that their party was in charge of Birmingham city council during the time to which I am referring, and it still is. No one could fail to have been struck by the number of homes and shops boarded up in that constituency. Take, for example, the parade of shops in Shard End, over which all the flats were boarded up. [Interruption.] Perhaps the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) might like to take note.

Mr. Speaker: Order. First of all, if the hon. Lady intended to raise matters relating to another constituency, she should have notified the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I know we are near the end of term and I like to give some leeway, but the supplementary question must be short.

Caroline Spelman: For all the worthy aspirations of the decent homes standard, does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the Government have failed to get to grips with the problem of empty flats over shops, which could be made into perfectly decent homes and be an asset rather than a liability?

Keith Hill: I suppose that after her long sojourn in Hodge Hill I ought to welcome the hon. Lady back to the Dispatch Box, but in the light of her singular lack of success in Hodge Hill, it might be a good idea for her to repair to her own constituency, Meriden, at the earliest opportunity. She raised a number of issues, one of which was the decline in neighbourhood shops. I want to encourage Birmingham city council's programme of flourishing neighbourhoods, which is designed to deal with those issues. With regard to flats above shops, the Government have already set up a taskforce to deal with that problem. We are making progress there. The hon. Lady ought to at least acknowledge the Government's addition to the current Housing Bill of a proposition to bring empty homes in cities back into rented accommodation.

Dennis Skinner: What is the philosophical objection of my right hon. Friend to the idea that councils like Bolsover—which does not have social services, does not deal in education, and deals only with housing—should be able to keep control of the housing stock and build even more? What is the philosophical objection to that, even in new Labour?

Keith Hill: Well, I do not know. I am not always described as new Labour, nor, for that matter, is my Department invariably categorised in that fashion. As I understand it, my hon. Friend's local authority, Bolsover, is in the process of carrying out the stock options appraisal, which will be completed in January. At that stage we can have a look to see what is the appropriate way forward. As I have already indicated, mainstream funding by Bolsover may well be the appropriate way forward.

Caroline Spelman: As Shelter's report on homeless households, "Living in Limbo", reveals, the number of people living in temporary accommodation has hit record levels at 94,000 and is still rising. Does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accept that temporary accommodation, by definition, is the antithesis of a decent home, and that a doubling of the length of time that people have to wait for a permanent home is an indictment of the Government's policy? Is not the truth of the matter that although the decent homes standard is a laudable ambition, for 94,000 people the Government have made it irrelevant?

Keith Hill: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is an issue about which the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned. But while she has been away in Hodge Hill, she obviously missed the Chancellor's excellent statement, which will accord huge new levels of investment for social housing in the next spending review period. It is our expectation that as a result of those high levels of investment, which will yield no fewer than 75,000 new homes for social renting in that period, by 2008 we shall have turned round the increase in homelessness.

Clive Betts: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that of the three options that he says are available to tenants now to achieve decent homes—stock transfer, PFIs and ALMOs—ALMOs are different in that their borrowing counts against Government borrowing? Will he give an assurance to tenants in Sheffield who are working with the local authority towards ALMOs that no artificial limit will be placed on the amount they can borrow, so that even where tenants of local authorities choose the ALMO route, in practice it will not be available to them?

Keith Hill: We hope to work with Sheffield to deliver on the ALMO programme, for which funding is available. The new arrangements for housing capital finance were introduced in April, and they allow local authorities to determine how much they can afford to borrow beyond borrowing supported by central Government—the matter is linked to increases in the management and maintenance allowance. We hope that a number of authorities will be enabled to deliver decent homes under the so-called prudential code.

Edward Davey: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee recently released a critical report on progress towards the decent homes standard. Why are Ministers now the only people who believe that the decent homes standard will be met by 2010? The spending review provided new money for housing in growth areas and low-demand areas, but it provided no money for the decent homes programme. Given the tough efficiency savings that Ministers demand from the housing sector and the recent trend for tenants to vote against stock transfer, which of these will be dropped first—the decent homes target or the Government's ideological obsession against local authority borrowing for housing investment?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Funding is available for the decent homes programme. We acknowledge that the decent homes target for 2010 is challenging, but I reiterate that we are on target to bring 1.6 million homes up to the decent homes standard by 2008.

Northern Way Growth Strategy

Lorna Fitzsimons: What assessment he has made of the effects of the Northern Way growth strategy on growth in the north.

John Prescott: In February, I invited the three northern regional development agencies to produce a joint plan for driving up sustainable economic growth in the north, and I expect to receive that report shortly. The three northern regions, which are home to 15 million people, have excellent prospects for economic growth. To help boost the economic revival in the north and elsewhere, the spending review has increased the funding of RDAs from the current £1.8 billion to £2.3 billion in 2007–08.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend, whose personal commitment to regeneration in the north is welcome, for that answer. Is he aware that the fastest economic growth in Britain is in south Manchester? He might miss a trick by not joining up the huge pools of Government investment in the regeneration of north Manchester around Rochdale and Oldham with organisations such as the Knowledge Capital Group, which maximises research and development in universities. Will he do everything in his power to make sure that we maximise public investment in north and south Manchester to make sure that we are the engine in the Northern Way?

John Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recently visited her constituency, where we have made a substantial investment in housing in low-demand areas through the pathfinder programme. The Northern Way is not taking over cities' roles, and it co-ordinates the economic assets and advantages that exist in the three regions. Rochdale has an extremely important part to play, and I was pleased to learn about its development plans, which fit into the Northern Way. The Northern Way will not replace the RDAs, which will work together for the benefit of north Manchester and Rochdale.

Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing disappointment that the RDAs in the north failed to deliver a rural-proofing policy in the Countryside Agency report? What progress can he make through the Northern Way growth strategy to answer that criticism?

John Prescott: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We develop not only urban areas but rural areas, and we have given that objective to the RDAs. I recently attended a meeting in Cumbria, where the representative from the rural board, which was the set-up before the RDAs took over, was keen to point out the increase in resources for rural areas in Cumbria. Rural areas are important parts of the region; we will not ignore them and the RDAs are directly responsible for implementing the plans that we have given them.

Peter Pike: This afternoon the Northwest Development Agency will announce decisions on the aerospace innovation centre that is to be sited in Lancashire. Is that not an important part of the Northern Way policy, along with the housing renewal pathfinder project? Will it not eventually make the north-west the place to be, and make Burnley a good place for people to live and work in?

John Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose area benefits from the pathfinder proposals. We have also given new powers to the regional development agency to ensure that decisions on jobs, housing and infrastructure are brought together. I think the RDA has done well in that regard. The Northern Way will unite all those decisions across the three regions, and will begin to develop the assets of the north rather than allowing them to become liabilities. It is really a matter of the sum of the parts.

Bernard Jenkin: Does not the Northern Way strategy underline two huge conflicts at the heart of the Government's entire policy? First, whatever the Deputy Prime Minister is planning to spend in the north of England, will it not be utterly dwarfed by investment in the massive 1 million homes that he plans to build in the south, east and south-east of England? Secondly, what is the purpose of setting up elected regional assemblies in the north if the Deputy Prime Minister is going to impose a strategy of his own? What is the point of the cost of all those extra politicians and bureaucrats if he is going to stick his own strategy on them and tell them what to do? That is not devolution; it is fake devolution.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman often reveals his ignorance of what is actually going on. He needs to recognise that housing problems in the north are different from those in the south. We have a lot of empty houses in the north, because there is less demand. The opposite is true in the south. If we have to deal with different problems at different costs, we must make the appropriate decisions. More resources may be used in the south, but we have made it clear that the distribution will be balanced fairly.
	The Northern Way is a very imaginative idea, which came from the north itself. It was not imposed by the Government; it was presented by the three regions. We now await the taskforce report.
	The regional development agency has played an important role in all this. A week ago, the hon. Gentleman said in the House that he had no intention of abolishing the RDAs. He said:
	"We have not said that we will scrap the regional development agencies."—[Official Report, 13 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1262.]
	I do not know whether he was using the royal "we". The Tory party manifesto stated that the party would "abolish Regional Development Agencies". Is that the position of the Tory party?

Antisocial Behaviour

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has for reducing the level of antisocial behaviour on housing estates.

Nick Raynsford: The Government have increased the powers available to local authorities, the police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour no matter where people live. Antisocial behaviour orders are available regardless of the perpetrator's or the victim's housing status. There are also a number of powers available specifically to social landlords to protect both their tenants and the wider community.Those have recently been strengthened in a number of ways, including the commencement on 30 June of new powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The Housing Bill also provides new powers applying to both the social and private rented sectors. On Monday the Home Secretary launched his strategic plan reinforcing the Government's commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but is he aware that a very small number of tenants in my constituency, through blatant antisocial behaviour, are making the life of many tenants of council and housing association homes a complete misery? That is doing untold harm to the victims. It can lead to the break-up of marriages, depression and illness, and many good tenants are being forced out of their homes. Will the Minister come up to my constituency so that I can take him out canvassing, and we can view the problem at first hand?

Nick Raynsford: I am well aware of the specific problems that have been identified on the Gaywood South ward, the Reffley Lane estate and the South Lynn estate. I understand that the council is aware of the problems, but may not have been able to pursue the antisocial behaviour orders as expeditiously as people would like because of capacity constraints due to staff absence. It will be taking action, however, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will support that wholeheartedly. I am not sure, though, that he really wants me to come and canvass for the Labour party in his constituency.

Christine Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of tackling antisocial behaviour on estates has been the introduction of neighbourhood wardens, who can be a uniformed presence on the street and the eyes and ears of local communities? Will he join me in congratulating the Chester community rangers, who have just been awarded the neighbourhood renewal unit quality standard for their excellent work? Following the comprehensive spending review, can he assure me that their work will continue?

Nick Raynsford: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's views about the importance of neighbourhood wardens and the significant role of community support officers working with the police to ensure a far more active presence in many of the areas where antisocial behaviour and criminal activity pose a challenge to communities. We are determined as a Government to extend those initiatives and to help to reinforce the sense of security and safety in communities, so that they can work together to tackle that appalling problem.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Edward Leigh: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the two firefighters killed tackling a fire in east London yesterday. They died doing an extraordinary and heroic job and our thoughts are with their families at this time.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Edward Leigh: On behalf of all his colleagues, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on the 10th anniversary of his election as leader of the Labour party today? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Does the Prime Minister recall that, in those halcyon days in 1994, he said that it was wrong that we were wasting millions of pounds on accountants and bureaucrats in the NHS instead of spending it on doctors and nurses? Is it not a shame that, 10 years on, the National Audit Office still does not have a detailed cost breakdown of how much of the £61 billion extra investment is reaching the front line? Can we please have detailed cost breakdowns between spending and overheads on the front line? Will he provide Parliament with the information that we need?

Tony Blair: Administration costs as a proportion of overall expenditure in the health service are falling, but since the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, what we have been able to achieve in the national health service over the past few years are 67,000 more nurses, 19,000 more doctors, and reductions in every single part of waiting times and waiting lists, including in his own constituency.

Michael Jabez Foster: May I with sincerity congratulate my right hon. Friend on his 10 years as party leader, in consequence of which Hastings and Rye are now Labour towns, benefiting from around 2,000 fewer victims of crime? Will he join me in congratulating the Hastings crime reduction partnership on that success, which is due in large measure to the 37 street wardens and community support officers who are now walking the streets and making them safer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should be brief.

Tony Blair: I know that it takes my hon. Friend some time to go through the achievements. It is correct that we are putting more support officers and neighbourhood wardens into operation on our streets. That is important because people welcome them where they have been in operation. We should not forget either that we have 12,500 more police officers since 1997, and it is this Government who are going to carry on increasing the police budget—unlike the Conservative party, which is going to impose a cut in the police budget by the cash freeze announced by the shadow Chancellor.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the firefighters who lost their lives yesterday and in expressing our sincere sympathy to their families.
	I, too, would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his 10th anniversary as Labour leader. They have been 10 years of deep frustration for the ambitions of my party and for the ambitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not here today.
	In his acceptance speech 10 years ago, the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Can he tell us what has happened to violent crime since he became Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: Under the British crime survey, violent crime is down, not up, since we took office. It is true that recorded violent crime is up, but overall, crime is down since we came to power. As I have just said, we have increased the number of police officers by 12,500. That contrasts with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record, as he cut the number of police officers serving on Britain's streets.

Michael Howard: The British crime survey figures do not include murder, rape, drugs offences or crimes against children, which is why the Prime Minister never mentioned them when he was Leader of the Opposition and why he then used the recorded crime figures only. On the recorded crime figures, violent crime has gone up by 64 per cent. since 1998. For the first time in this country, 1 million violent crimes were committed in a single year. The Prime Minister has also said that too many of the guilty are going free. Can he tell us how many people guilty of these violent crimes are brought to book?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of violent crime, the British crime survey is calculated in exactly the same way as it was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office, and the figures indicate that violent crime is down. Secondly, crime overall has fallen but, yes, there are real problems with violent crime. That is why we have the new Criminal Justice Act 2003 coming into force, which will make a big difference in many parts of the country. It is also why we have more police officers and new measures on antisocial behaviour. None of this would be improved by his plans to cut the police budget in real terms.

Michael Howard: I am not going to cut the police budget; that is absolute nonsense. The Prime Minister was also talking nonsense when he said that overall crime had fallen. On the recorded crime figures, crime has gone up by 15.5 per cent. since 1998. The Prime Minister did not answer my question. He certainly has been good at very many things over the last 10 years, but answering questions is not one of them. Clear-up rates for violent crime have fallen by nearly a third. Over 500,000 violent crimes were not cleared up, which is one of the reasons why too many of the guilty are going free. Let us look at another issue. Will he tell the House how many criminals he has let out of prison under his early release scheme who have committed more crimes when they should still have been in prison?

Tony Blair: First, we have increased the number of prison places in this country. Yes, it is true that some let out under early release—who would, of course, have been released later in any event—have committed crimes, but it is a small percentage of the overall figures. [Interruption.] Two per cent., I am told. Let us go back to the essential question. Crime has actually fallen under this Government, not risen. The Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago that he does not intend to freeze the law and order budget. Let me read what the shadow Chancellor has said:
	"I have agreed with my shadow Cabinet colleagues that the baseline for spending across all of these departmental budgets—
	that is, outside the NHS and schools budgets—
	will be 0 per cent. growth for the first two years."
	That is in cash terms and it includes the law and order budget, does it not?

Michael Howard: No, it does not, because we have also explained how we will save over £1 billion a year on the paying of benefits to asylum seekers. Let us get back to crime. On the recorded crime figures, about which the Prime Minister always talked when he was in opposition, there have been 800,000 more crimes committed a year than in 1998. That is an increase of 15.5 per cent. Since his early release scheme was introduced, nearly 2,000 prisoners have committed crimes when they should have been in prison. They have been responsible for nine serious sexual crimes, 163 burglaries, 47 robberies and 462 other violent crimes, whose victims will not have been comforted by the Prime Minister's assurance that that is a small percentage. What is tough on crime about that?

Tony Blair: Tough on crime means making sure that we toughen up the penalties for serious offenders and for drug pushers, which we have done. It also means making sure that we increase the number of police on the streets and that we back that up with community support officers, which we have done. It further means getting crime down overall, which we have also done.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is going to save £1 billion through the reduction of asylum costs, but that is going back to his fantasy island, is it not? We have been doing a little research on this. Apparently, the shadow Chancellor actually says that he is going to save £1.8 billion on asylum costs; unfortunately, that is the whole of the immigration budget. [Laughter.] So perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain, given his proposed freeze on the law and order budget, how he would maintain police numbers, improve investment in the criminal justice system and carry on getting crime to fall.

Michael Howard: Anyone who thinks that I would not make sure that the Home Office gets the resources that it needs is living in fantasy land. This week, the Prime Minister launched another of his five-year plans full of gimmicks and schemes, like the ones he has had before. Can he tell us how many people have been marched to a cash point, how many have had their housing benefit docked, and how many are appearing before night courts? Is any one of the gimmicks that he has previously announced still in operation?

Tony Blair: Certainly. Thousands of fixed penalty notices have been given up and down this country. [Interruption.] They are on-the-spot fines and they have been welcomed by police throughout the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman actually opposed fixed penalty notices, and incidentally he also opposed the introduction of community support officers; perhaps he will tell us whether that is still his position? As for it being fantasy that he would cut the Home Office budget, perhaps he will now accept that when he was Home Secretary, having promised to raise police numbers, he actually cut them.

Michael Howard: Everybody knows that crime fell by 18 per cent. while I was Home Secretary, which is more than even the Government's target for the next five years. Now, let us get back to my question. I did not ask about fixed penalties; I asked about cash points. The answer to the question that I asked the Prime Minister is none—no thugs have been marched to cash points, no one has had their housing benefit docked and the courts do not sit at night. Is not the truth that every one of these failed initiatives is typical of this Government's dismal record on crime? Ten years on from his acceptance speech, have we not had just more slogans, more spin, more gimmicks and more initiatives, none of which are tough on crime or on the causes of crime?

Tony Blair: Fixed penalty notices are of course on-the-spot fines, and they are to be combined with antisocial behaviour orders, closing down crack houses, making sure that the police have the power to close pubs and clubs where disorder occurs, making sure that courts have a proper information technology system, and putting more community support officers and police on the beat.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to compare 10-year records and I am very pleased to do that. Let us look at them, mine and his. Under this Labour Government, we have more people in work, the first ever minimum wage, the lowest interest and inflation rates for years, the best ever exam results, and more teachers and nurses; moreover, crime is down. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman, what happened? When he was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment went up, and when he was Home Secretary, police numbers came down. And we should never forget that he was the one who introduced the poll tax. So on comparing 10-year records, we are doing pretty well.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that some very good things came out of the 1960s, most notably the then Government's determination to tackle for the first time through legislation the scourge of discrimination, which affects millions of our fellow citizens? Does he also agree that now is the time to look again at our laws and to make them easier for victims of discrimination to use, and to encourage the prevention of discrimination in the first place, thereby greatly improving the life-chances and opportunities of millions of our fellow citizens?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely. The strengthening of the law against discrimination has been an important part of this Government's agenda over the past few years. Whatever the difficulties in our society, we should be pleased that discrimination forms no part of the respectable part of politics, and all politicians in the main political parties regard the idea of playing politics with race and discrimination as completely out of order.

Charles Kennedy: On Sudan, and the unfolding catastrophe in Darfur, I welcome the extra £28 million that the Government have pledged for direct assistance. What scope does the Prime Minister see for further practical steps on the back of that welcome decision, to assist the millions of Sudanese facing ethnic cleansing and starvation?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the additional resources, which mean that after the United States of America we are the largest bilateral donor in this situation. The key things now are, first, to ensure that whatever aid is given goes through to the people who need it most, and secondly, to keep up pressure on the Government of Sudan to ensure that they deal with the real problems that are giving rise to the violence and ethnic cleansing. We must continue, along with the United States, to put as much pressure as we can on them to do that.

Charles Kennedy: I certainly thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the international community must recognise the absolute sense of urgency here, not least the fact that we cannot expect only 60 United Nations monitors and 300 troops adequately to patrol an area the size of France? Will he continue to send every conceivable signal to the rest of the international community about the urgency involved, because the real danger in humanitarian terms is that we could be facing the obscenity of another Rwanda?

Tony Blair: It is for that very reason that we have been in touch not only with the United States but with other countries on the issue over the past few weeks. I myself have spoken twice to Kofi Annan about it. We will continue to work closely with the United Nations and with the other countries involved in this, and to monitor the situation very carefully. We rule absolutely nothing out in this situation. Let us see how the results of the extra aid develop over the coming days. We will keep a very, very close watch on this, and I am in contact with other Ministers on it literally every day.

Bill Tynan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that over the next few months MPs of all parties will receive substantial complaints in their postbags about fireworks misuse. Yesterday, 8 tonnes of fireworks were seized in Gloucester. Does he accept that, unless we strengthen the Fireworks Regulations 2004, which are currently before the House, we will continue to suffer the problems of the illegal importation of fireworks and we will not have a system for licensing retailers?

Tony Blair: I agree. The regulations were laid before the House last Friday, and we are also implementing everything that was contained in the Department of Trade and Industry consultation document on the issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaigning that he has done on this subject over a long period.
	The measures in the regulations include making permanent the offence of possession of fireworks in public by under-18s; a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 o'clock at night and 7 in the morning, with certain exceptions such as Diwali and new year's eve; limiting the period in which fireworks can be supplied to the general public unless a licence is obtained from the relevant licensing authority; and a maximum noise limit. We have introduced the measures because of the problems to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and we will keep them closely under review.

Alan Reid: The Deputy Prime Minister closed the Oban coastguard station and two other stations despite many warnings that lives would be put at risk because of the loss of local knowledge. Earlier this week, the Transport Committee found that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had failed to carry out a full impact assessment of the closures. In view of that finding, will the Prime Minister set up an independent review to carry out a full impact assessment, and reopen the centres if that is what the review recommends?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman an independent inquiry, but I can tell him that I will look further into the issue and get back in touch with him about it in writing. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister says that a great deal of extensive consultation took place before the decisions were taken. There will always be difficult decisions to take in this area, but I will get back to the hon. Gentleman and write to him with the details.

David Kidney: However much purple haze rains down on my right hon. Friend, will he stand firm in upholding the primacy of the welfare of children, especially in those few cases where intervention by mediation or court ruling is necessary to determine contact with the separated parents?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is the interest of the child that should always be of paramount consideration. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and the process that we are discussing today will not alter that basic principle.

Pete Wishart: Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary quite rightly paid tribute to our armed forces in prosecuting the Prime Minister's illegal and unpopular war in Iraq. The rewards for their efforts are seemingly cuts and amalgamations, so what would the right hon. Gentleman say to my constituents serving in the Black Watch or some other historic Scottish regiment who have been put in the firing line abroad only to be stabbed in the back at home?

Tony Blair: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he does his case no good whatever by that type of statement. Let me point out to him that, under this Government, defence spending is rising. Of course there are changes in how we spend the defence budget. That is sensible. As the world changes, it is important that we make changes to how we spend the money in relation to defence. No reductions in front-line troops are anticipated by the review today, but it is important to make sure that the record amounts of money that we spend on defence are spent in the most sensible way. Rather than talking about an illegal war, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that most of the people in his constituency serving in the regiments that he described will be proud of what they did in Iraq.

David Cairns: Is it not clear that, in this new century, the era of narrow-minded nationalism is passing? To that end, does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not matter which particular no-hoper leads the nationalist parties, because it is their philosophy of isolationism and separatism that is being consigned to the dustbin of history?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes his case very well, and I have to agree with it. It is interesting that, after devolution, which many people said would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, the UK is actually stronger today. I welcome that, and I think that most people realise that, for example, with the Scottish Parliament, the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people have been recognised, while the UK has been kept strong because the United Kingdom is in the interests of all the people who live in it.

Peter Bottomley: In the Prime Minister's first answer, he gave the impression or claimed that all hospital waiting times had been reduced. If we include constituents in Sedgefield with mine in Worthing, how many people have been waiting more than a year for audiology tests? Is the figure higher than when he became Prime Minister or higher than when he became leader of the Labour party?

Tony Blair: I do not know the figure off-hand, but I can look into it. However, I would have to say to the hon. Gentleman that anyone looking at the NHS today knows that, although there are still major problems, it is getting better as a result of the investment and reform that we have made; and the extra nurses and extra capacity, along with the changes, are delivering substantial falls in waiting times and waiting lists right across the piece. I would be astonished if that were not the case in his area; it certainly is in mine.

Tony McWalter: Just published—and a source of possible inspiration for many Members—is the autobiography of the late Jeremy Bray, MP, who combined a scintillating intellect with a profound sense of feeling for his fellow human beings. He constantly talks about his own fallibility and his limitations. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the mechanisms that he has in place for dealing with his own fallibility and limitations are sufficient? [Laughter.]

Tony Blair: I am absolutely confident that the mechanisms for judging my fallibility are infallible.

Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister recognise that his leadership and policies contributed to the collapse of the Labour vote in last week's parliamentary by-elections? What does he say to members of his party who feel that, after 10 years, he should honour his promise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and step aside?

Tony Blair: What the hon. Gentleman should do is realise that the Government of the country is decided, ultimately, at a general election. We look forward to meeting the Liberal Democrats at that election.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will recall that we are celebrating 30 years of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. May I urge him to bring forward new and tough legislation that will confront the issue of corporate killing?

Tony Blair: First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the Health and Safety Commission over the past 30 years. We will prepare proposals on this matter and publish a draft Bill later in the year. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that the matter to which he refers raises very complex issues, and that we need to get the balance right on corporate responsibility.

David Rendel: The Prime Minister and the Government believe in widening participation in higher education, as does my party. However, the number of young people in England aged between 18 and 20 applying to university has fallen as a proportion of the total number of people in that age group. In fact, the figures are down to about 12,000 below the level that one would have expected over the past two years. I believe that that is because of tuition fees and top-up fees. Can the Prime Minister offer any other explanation?

Tony Blair: First, I do not believe that the numbers are falling. The numbers of people going to university are rising. If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I shall check the statistic that he gave me before I agree to it. Secondly, it is important to recognise that the Government are putting more taxpayer's money into higher education. However, if Britain is to compete with the very best and get even more people into university—and especially people from lower-income backgrounds—we have to change the system of funding. We are reintroducing grants and making sure that children from the poorest families get £3,000 a year in support, but we are saying to those who get the benefits of a university education that they should put something back into the pot after they graduate, for the general good of the country. I do not think that unreasonable. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we were to put in even more money by means of a 50 per cent. top rate tax, that would not be good for the economy. Even if we raised the money—which we would not—I do not think that it would be the right priority for spending.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British Telecom on its new system to block customers' access to child pornography websites? That stops a staggering 10,000 attempts a day to download images of children being abused and raped. Vodaphone has now agreed to use similar technology. Will the Prime Minister now call on all internet service providers and mobile phone companies to follow that example and help stamp out that despicable trade in children's misery?

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we will certainly do so. We welcome the BT initiative to block access to web pages containing images of child abuse. We would encourage any measure that other internet service providers take to reduce the availability of such images. We will be inviting leading service providers to a meeting in September to consider what can be learned from the experience of the BT initiative, and how that can be extended across the piece. However, I know that this is a serious issue of public concern, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are acting on it.

Patrick McLoughlin: When defence Ministers said that Piers Morgan should take full responsibility for publishing fake photographs in his newspaper, and when Alastair Campbell said that Gavyn Davies should take full responsibility for the BBC's output, would it have been an adequate defence to say that they acted in good faith?

Tony Blair: In our debate yesterday, we went through all the various issues in relation to this matter—[Hon. Members: Answer!] I will answer, very directly. It is not simply a question of having acted in good faith. We acted on the intelligence that we had. I defy anyone to look at that intelligence and say that they would not have come to the same conclusion. I believe that we took the right decision, and I stand by it. I believe that the world, Iraq and the region are better places as a result.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the number of apprenticeships that have been developed in the Clyde—some 250 in the past few years and another 100 about to start in the coming year. Can he allay my concerns about what will happen with future orders, to ensure that those 350 young people have jobs in the decades to come?

Tony Blair: It is precisely by keeping the strong economy that we will encourage such apprenticeships. As my hon. Friend may know, we have seen a rise from 70,000 modern apprenticeships to 250,000 in the country as a whole. It is the combination of investment in training and skills and a stable economy with high levels of employment that is the best guarantee of increasing prosperity, not merely in my hon. Friend's constituency, but throughout the country.

Sandra Gidley: The Prime Minister will be aware that the star ratings for trusts were released today, and that a target for primary care trusts is access to a GP within 48 hours. I wish to share with him a brief email that went out from Southampton City PCT:
	"Just a reminder that the Primary Care Access Survey will take place this Wednesday . . . between 11am and 1pm. If you . . . have any problems hitting the . . . 48hrs . . . target, please contact . . . ."
	Will the Prime Minister admit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A short supplementary would have been fine. Can the Prime Minister answer?

Tony Blair: I shall do my best. First, the star ratings are given by the independent Healthcare Commission. Secondly, my understanding is that the Liberal Democrats are against all these performance targets—the guarantees for people about access to GPs, the waiting list and waiting time targets. It is very odd of the hon. Lady to say that we should be even more vigorous and rigorous in ensuring that they are met. I remind her that we are putting more money into the national health service, including in her area, than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us for.

Rural Strategy

Margaret Beckett: I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's rural strategy 2004. As in the rural White Paper 2000, our vision for rural communities is based on delivering genuinely sustainable development, with economic and social strategies consistent with our aim of protecting and enhancing our natural heritage for future generations. Rural strategy 2004 represents an ambitious set of policy priorities for rural communities and the countryside, coupled with radical reforms to the delivery of our policies.
	Fresh evidence that we have commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas. For example, measured in terms of average household income, 55 per cent. of households in rural areas are above the median, but the evidence also confirms that the picture is by no means uniform across rural England. Rural society is changing in ways that are blurring the distinction between urban and rural. Farming remains at the heart of rural society, and an important focus of rural policy, but employees in rural businesses are now more likely to be employed in manufacturing, tourism or retailing. Within the overall picture of relative prosperity, there are pockets of economic and social disadvantage.
	That evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation. My reform agenda sees the devolution of decisions and delivery—to get help to the areas and people that need it most. To ensure that they are able to access that help, I will ruthlessly streamline the funding support we provide. The present 100 rural, agricultural and environmental funding schemes will be reduced to three major funding programmes linked to strategic priorities, allowing us both to sweep away unnecessary rules and to simplify application processes.
	Our policy has three main planks. First, while supporting prosperity across the board, we will act to help the minority of rural areas that are lagging economically. I want rural businesses to have the support they need. This year, I will put an extra £2 million into the Business Link network, to improve support and assistance to businesses, especially those in lagging rural areas. I want all rural business men and women to know that they can turn to a service that understands their needs, including the needs of agricultural businesses and businesses diversifying from agriculture, and a service to help them through the existing maze of services and grants available.
	I will devolve decision making and funding for economic regeneration to the regional development agencies, to allow decisions better to reflect the needs and pressures in each region. I am increasing the funding DEFRA provides to the RDAs' single pot from £45 million to £72 million next year. To ensure that it is spent in the most effective way, each region is to put in place arrangements to facilitate rural prioritisation within a strong partnership structure. I shall not impose a single structural form—I want to encourage maximum simplification and streamlining—so that regional delivery partners are set free to focus on doing, rather than talking.
	Local authorities have a vital role as community leaders in joining up and delivering quality services, so I intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities. Over the course of this year we will set up a pathfinder in each region, to explore practical ways of providing more joined-up and flexible approaches at local level in rural areas, including joining up services and funding at the point of delivery.
	The second plank of our policy is to tackle rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and to achieve fair access to services. Access to transport, to affordable housing and to broadband helps to underpin economic prosperity and social justice for rural dwellers. Last week, the Government announced more money for sustainable housing. My Department will act as guardian, to ensure that that money helps to address social disadvantage in rural areas.
	I will devolve money for building capacity in the voluntary and community sector to each region, to be managed through the Government offices, as that sector can truly understand local need and provide innovative solutions. However, I want to be sure that we get an independent assessment of results. The need for a rural advocate is as strong as ever, so I will create a small and well-focused new countryside agency by next April, initially within the legal framework of the existing body, to act as expert watchdog and advocate on behalf of rural communities. Its priority will be rural disadvantage, and it will act as a think-tank and futures body, drawing on its monitoring of progress and best practice to suggest innovative solutions to Government.
	The third plank of our policy is to protect and enhance the natural environment in rural areas, and that of our seas, coasts and rivers, and our green spaces in towns and cities. A healthy and attractive countryside brings social benefits such as tranquillity, but also economic benefits; more than 300,000 jobs depend directly on it, and rural tourism brings about £13.8 billion to the rural economy each year.
	Rural England is also a treasure trove of diverse and wonderful landscapes and wildlife. Its natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life; improving its health is the most valuable inheritance we can leave. Our woodlands, for example, help to mitigate the effects of climate change—one of the most serious environmental problems the world faces. Visiting the countryside does much to improve our quality of life, providing recreation, better health and a source of education and learning.
	Much of the quality of our landscape and its biodiversity depends on how it is managed by farmers and others. The changes that we are introducing as a result of CAP reform will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment. As recommended by Lord Haskins, we will establish an integrated agency to deliver our policy objective of a healthy countryside valued and used in a sustainable way. The new agency will be a powerful, independent statutory non-departmental public body, building on the world-class strengths of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service. Its remit will be the integrated management of our natural heritage that the challenges and environmental threats of the 21st century demand. That will include biodiversity, landscape, and the sustainable use of the countryside, including recreation and access. It will have a remit to carry out its functions within a sustainable development context. It will work closely with the RDAs—and elected regional assemblies, if established—to ensure that the natural environment is taken into account in regional policy making and activity.
	The formal establishment of the integrated agency will require primary legislation. I hope to introduce legislation next year and to publish a draft Bill, as an early step. In the meantime, while each of the three bodies will remain responsible for their own statutory duties, they will come together into a confederation of partners by April next year. To help that partnership working, I will move the Rural Development Service from the policy core of DEFRA and give it the autonomy that befits a major delivery body.
	This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners, as well as to our own delivery agents. The significant streamlining of our funding should make things easier and simpler for our customers. These arrangements are aimed at improving effectiveness in the delivery of our three policy priorities, within an enduring framework of sustainable development. They will also deliver efficiencies, exploiting operational synergies and removing duplication. They have been developed in an inclusive and transparent way. They will build on the excellent work being done across the country by those working for DEFRA and its family, and beyond DEFRA. They will provide greater freedom to staff to get on with delivering what our customers need from the Government, and I am confident our people will rise to that challenge.
	I want these reforms to be workable, but sufficiently flexible to meet future challenges and changes. I commend the approach and its implementation to the House.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the letter that she sent me first thing this morning, although the website referred to in it did not contain any detail of the rural strategy, and for a copy of her statement, which for various reasons, including a mishap—I am not sure whose—I have only seen in the past 15 minutes or so. I welcome the recognition that some rural areas do not share the prosperity enjoyed by other areas, but I am afraid that I do not share her view of how their needs should be addressed.
	First, on agriculture, I appreciate that the Government may have more to say about farming-related issues tomorrow, but the Secretary of State's two-and-a-half- page letter—headed, "Rural Strategy 2004"—does not mention either agriculture or farming, and the statement that she just made scarcely did so. That will alarm many people who depend on that vital industry for their livelihood. It suggests that, even now, Labour Ministers do not recognise the central role that farmers play in protecting, maintaining and enhancing the rural environment, and the extent to which prosperity in many parts of the countryside is still very directly related to the fortunes of agriculture.
	The statement is made against the background of severe problems in many rural communities. Under Labour, rural councils receive less cash support from the Government than their urban counterparts; under Labour, rural communities have fewer police per head of population than their urban counterparts; under Labour, rural bus services receive less support than their urban counterparts; under Labour, homelessness in rural areas is rising; under Labour, police stations in rural areas are closing; and under Labour, post offices in rural areas are disappearing and the proportion of households in rural areas with access to affordable broadband connections is only a tiny fraction of what it is in towns.
	Against that background, the proposals summarised in the Secretary of State's letter this morning and in much of the statement that she has just given to the House are vague, often riddled with jargon and sometimes of limited relevance to the needs of rural communities. A dairy farmer worried about the spread of TB, a rural community whose environment is about to be destroyed, against its wishes, by the development of nearby greenfield sites at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister or a neighbourhood blighted by illegal fly-tipping will draw no comfort from the waffle that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, such as
	"setting up regional pathfinders";
	"bringing together partners at regional and sub-regional level";
	"consultation about the Department's list of indicator districts in relation to PSA targets".
	So much for the DEFRA family.
	Why will the Government not stand up for rural communities in a practical way and give local councils, which are democratically accountable, the power to decide how much development takes place on greenfield sites in their districts, what kind of building is allowed and where it should go? Why will the Secretary of State not address the rapidly growing menace of fly-tipping, a  problem partly caused by her Department's incompetence in not preparing for the implementation of new laws? Why not, for example, make fly-tipping an arrestable offence now? Without such practical steps her claim—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to speak.

Tim Yeo: I am afraid that Labour Members do not like the truth about what they have done to our rural communities. Without such practical steps, the Secretary of State's claim that her policy will protect the rural environment will ring very hollow indeed in many parts of the countryside.
	In turning to that part of the statement that deals with the response to Lord Haskins' review, I make clear our support for the broad thrust of many of his conclusions and, in particular, that too many organisations have become involved in the delivery of rural policy, leading to confusion, inefficiency and a lack of co-ordination and accountability. Proposals to reduce the number of organisations to a more manageable number are therefore desirable. However, as the Secretary of State has said, since legislation will be needed to set up the new integrated agency, there seems a danger that, until parliamentary time is available, uncertainty may now blight some of the work of the existing bodies. Since the Countryside Agency is apparently to continue as a rump, there still seems to be a lack of clarity in the Government's mind about how the new arrangements will work.
	Let me also make it clear that we do not agree that the regional development agencies are the right bodies to perform an expanded role in delivering any aspect of rural policy. The idea that using regional development agencies—and, possibly, and even worse, elected regional assemblies—will bring the delivery of services even closer to rural communities is so absurd that it can be proposed only by a Minister who neither knows nor cares what life is like in the remoter parts of East Anglia and the south-west.
	Regional development agencies are unaccountable, bureaucratic quangos that are wasteful in their use of public resources. They exercise powers that have mostly been seized from elected local authorities, particularly county councils. The fact that their main champion is the Deputy Prime Minister should alone make anyone in rural communities suspicious of them. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister has only one view of the countryside and that is as a vast potential building site.
	It is a pity that the Secretary of State has done nothing in her period in office to protect our landscape from the unwanted and intrusive developments imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister or to defend the rights of elected county and district councils to exercise local control over the scale of new development. We will fight the transfer of any more responsibilities to regional development agencies in the context of rural policy.
	I am also concerned that the important independent advisory role at present entrusted by law to English Nature will still be performed properly under the proposed new arrangements. From time to time—for example, over the issue of GM crops and their environmental impact—the independent advice that English Nature has provided has been uncomfortable for the Government, but the need for that advice and the need for an independent voice able to speak up with the authority of a statutory body remain. I am therefore concerned that the new arrangements will not fully recognise this need.
	I am concerned also that, although the aim of the proposals is to streamline the machinery through which rural policy is delivered, the situation will, in certain respects, get more complicated. For example, the role envisaged for regional rural affairs forums is a move in the opposite direction. They will be talking shops for so-called stakeholders and nothing more.
	People in my constituency of South Suffolk and in other rural areas are used to plain speaking. There has not been much of that from the Secretary of State today. For too long, rural communities have been at the bottom of the Government's agenda. They have been discriminated against in terms of financial support and neglected through the provision of new services, with their age-old traditions held in contempt by urban new Labour Ministers, their industries endangered by imports, often produced to lower standards than those required here, and their environment destroyed in too many areas by a stroke of the Deputy Prime Minister's pen. Judging by what the Secretary of State said today, only the election of a Conservative Government will start the process of addressing their real and urgent needs.

Margaret Beckett: I got the distinct impression that the hon. Gentleman had understood neither the statement, nor, despite his experience, the reality of what is happening in rural areas. Let me pick up on a couple of the many points that he made. He talked about ignoring the central role of farmers, but I specifically identified and recognised that, as we do through the £17 billion that goes to farmers under pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy. He is right that there are other occasions to make more detailed announcements about farming—today's statement was about rural areas as a whole. Some 25 per cent. of those employed in rural areas are employed in manufacturing, which is more than in urban areas. Some 9 per cent. are employed in tourism, with 7 per cent. in retailing and 6 per cent. in agriculture. I share his view that agriculture is enormously important, but it is a pity that he seems to think that unless we are talking about farming, we are not talking about rural areas.
	The hon. Gentleman listed ways in which he thought that rural areas were discriminated against under Labour, but ignored the fact that under this Government, all councils have received more money and every area has more police services. Under this Government, £450 million has been put into supporting rural post offices. He was foolish enough to talk about post offices disappearing, but it was because many commercial rural enterprises disappeared under the Government of whom he was a member that we were forced to introduce a special rate relief for villages with only one such enterprise left. They did not all disappear under us, but under them.
	The hon. Gentleman made a totally unwise and inaccurate remark about English Nature and GM crops. English Nature advised us to run the trials, which we did, and after we received the results of the trials, a scientist from English Nature told us that he could not understand why anyone would oppose something that was better for the environment. Of course, however, that is quite consistent, because the only Government who brought GM products on to the market in this country were the Government of whom he was a member.
	The hon. Gentleman said that people like plain speaking and that rural areas have been at the bottom of the agenda under this Government. The plain-speaking truth is that if the Conservatives' stewardship of rural areas had been as he said, and if they had not taken many rural areas and their support completely for granted, we would not now have some 180 Labour MPs representing rural and semi-rural constituencies.

Andrew George: I thank the Secretary of State for providing me with an advance copy of her statement, although that happened after the Prime Minister rose to his feet for Prime Minister's questions—within half an hour of the statement itself. I did not receive a letter from her, although I have received a communication to tell me that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who shares my surname, received the letter rather than me. Perhaps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to examine its bureaucratic procedures.
	I understand why the Department has been drawn into the vortex of incredibly fluffy thinking that often arises when talking about rural development. Indeed, paragraph 40 of the candid report that the Secretary of State penned in autumn 2003 to review the progress of the rural White Paper said that
	"defining effectively what is meant by the concept of 'rural areas' versus urban"
	areas has been a challenge. In the same report, she said:
	"The White Paper's inevitably aspirational nature means that it has not always been easy to pin down what it has actually meant in practice, and different groups and individuals have tended to interpret it differently. This in turn has made it harder to be specific about the outcomes that the Government wants to see in rural areas and to target resources to those areas and people with greatest need."
	At least she acknowledged that, three years after the publication of the rural White Paper, the Government were not clear about what they were intending to do in the first place.
	The problem is that on top of the labyrinth of strategies, initiatives, pilots and projects, the rural strategy will fail if it merely adds to the strong sense of fatigue among the agencies, local authorities and Government Departments that are expected to implement it. The streamlining of initiatives and the funds announced today by the Secretary of State will help, but at least she was honest in her review of the rural White Paper when she said that among its "successes" it was "increasingly understood". It should now recognise the problems conventionally found in strategies created to give the impression of purposefulness, compared to the determined action required in rural areas today.
	I agreed with the principles that the Secretary of State set out, the general thrust of the reforms that she mentioned to clarify and devolve matters and the work to avoid rural areas becoming the exclusive preserve of the better-off. What has she done since the autumn to define what rural areas are, and do all Departments agree with the definition, especially the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in its delivery of housing policy? Does the strategy supersede the rural White Paper? Will she explain in plain English the core objective of the strategy and is she confident that it will this time be understood across Government Departments?
	Has the Secretary of State discussed the strategy on rural-proofing with her colleagues in the Treasury, who I understand are working tirelessly to ensure that Britain is removed from objective 1 and other European regional development aid? If that is the case, the money that the Government are proposing to add to rural regeneration might not even begin to match that withdrawn from the most needy rural areas that will lose aid.
	The Secretary of State said that money will be given to regional development agencies, but will it be apportioned according to need or simply on the basis of rural populations? What will be the role of the fully independent sector in rural delivery? Over decades, we have had the tried and tested process of rural community councils throughout rural England providing an excellent means of delivery, so bypassing them or giving funds to regional development agencies so that RCCs must try to draw money from them would not be a good mode of delivery. She should use the existing method of delivery to ensure that the money gets to the ground, and I would like some reassurance on that matter.
	On the environment, farmers are pivotal to delivering what the Government want throughout the countryside, but they are going out of business at the rate of 12 a day. Lord Haskins says that he thinks that the fact that farms are becoming larger is a good thing, although I do not know whether that is Government policy. What are Government doing to ensure that there are sufficient farmers so that their targets for the countryside may be met?
	The biggest challenge facing rural areas today is housing, so what is the Department going to do about that? If rural areas are not to become the exclusive preserve of the better-off, sustainable action is needed to ensure that rural areas are there for rural people.

Margaret Beckett: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that if the changes that we are announcing today merely add to the sense of fatigue, we will certainly have failed. However, I understand from the extensive discussions that my officials, ministerial colleagues and I have held with all those engaged that there is recognition of the need for change and a great willingness to embrace that change and take it forward.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about definitions and data. It is a symbol of the failure of the Conservative party that when we came to power and endeavoured, through the implementation of the rural White Paper, to find out how to address some of the problems that unquestionably exist in rural areas, there was a dearth of evidence, information and reliable data. We had to start from scratch in building an evidence base. We now have an agreed definition. I shall not share it with the House, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and ensure that the letter gets to him this time. Perhaps someone had not been to Walsall and misunderstood the nature of the countryside there.

Patrick McLoughlin: Someone in the Department.

Margaret Beckett: Someone in the postal service.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we discussed the issues with the Treasury. We certainly did and it is very much on board. It has taken on board the issues of rural proofing in its approach to expenditure and assessment of need. He referred to objective 1 status. He will know that no one fought harder than the Government to secure objective 1 status, not least for the area that he represents. Money has been pouring into his area under this Government in a way that has never been seen before. I am conscious of the difference between the concerns and the hopelessness that people saw six or seven years ago and the hope, optimism and fresh opportunities that exist in such areas today.
	The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position of rural community councils. We recognise the dangers he identifies. It is not intended that their funding should come through RDAs; the existing role will be retained. The general distribution of moneys between different RDAs will follow the overall picture because we will be contributing to the single pot.
	I agree that farmers are critical to the environment and land management. The hon. Gentleman asked what we had done to assist their enduring participation in farming. There have been many initiatives, gestures and support of various kinds, but the most important thing we have done is to reform the common agricultural policy, which sets them free to farm to the best advantage of their business, not because that is how they get the subsidy. On housing, I said that the resources will also apply to housing in rural areas.

Diana Organ: I warmly welcome the statement, in particular the reduction of the 100 rural agricultural and environmental funding schemes to three major ones. Will my right hon. Friend provide more detailed guidance on that, and if so when? Which funding schemes are going into which programme? Many organisations are delivering in rural areas and will want to know which section they have been put into.
	Will my right hon. Friend say a little about funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty? It was clear in the Haskins review that national parks will get 100 per cent. of their money directly from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the future of the money for areas of outstanding natural beauty was not clear. At the moment, some of it comes from local authorities and some from DEFRA.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist that supplementary questions are brief. Perhaps I can also put down a marker for Front-Bench spokesmen. Back-Bench Members also have to be called and that should be taken into consideration.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). We will obviously publish more detail. A rather attractive diagram shows what schemes will go where. Broadly speaking, the three major funds will focus on natural resource protection, sustainable food and farming, and sustainable rural communities. Although initially there will be an indication of how existing funds fit into that framework, one of my key goals has been that we do not simply introduce three headlines under which remain the existing complexity of schemes, rules, application forms and so on. I am determined that there will be three funding streams and that their delivery will be devolved as much as possible. We will also honour existing commitments, so it will take a little time to introduce the scheme.
	If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall write to her about areas of outstanding natural beauty. Those are covered by a range of issues and different sources of funding.

Angela Browning: If support for rural business is important, which it is, why are the enterprise agencies in Tiverton and Crediton in my constituency closing? The enterprise agency in Honiton will no longer be run locally, but from Plymouth—hardly rural—on the other side of the county, which is also the case for my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), whose constituency covers Exmouth.
	On social exclusion, why are the learning and skills councils cancelling from 1 August all courses that do not lead to a qualification for work, thus depriving all the adult population with learning disabilities of the opportunity to prepare for voluntary work? The Secretary of State painted a rather twee picture of the beautiful countryside, but when animals leave Devon in the next decade, which they will, it will not look like a chocolate-box picture; it will look like a wilderness.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those were supplementary questions. Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer just one of them.

Margaret Beckett: A number of the questions raised on specific policy developments are for other Departments, although I recognise the potential knock-on effect. As I said, we are not only putting more resources into support for businesses in rural areas, but intend to introduce a much more simplified and more effective way in which that support and information can be accessed.
	As for Devon being a wilderness and everyone leaving, the Government of whom the hon. Lady was a member would have been proud to deliver CAP reform in the way in which this Government have.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for an insightful analysis of rural life and the view of the future. Will she consider the renaissance market town development of Yorkshire Forward? It has been extended to Marsden and Slaithwaite in my constituency and allows the local community to develop its own plan for sustainable development. Will the new money be accessed more easily so that those plans are not just talked about but properly implemented?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right—the local project and initiative that she describes is exactly the sort of thing that we want to see spread more widely. The greater resources that we are putting in and the greater freedoms that we are devolving to a local level mean that others can learn from best practice, which can be widely replicated.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to your ruling on a point of order yesterday, Mr. Speaker? Her Department could comply with that by close of business tonight if she gave the necessary instruction, and I beg her to do so.
	On the more substantive issue, she mentioned the RDAs in paragraph 6 of the statement. Will she look at how her proposals will affect the Peak park, which falls into four Government areas—the east midlands, the west midlands, Yorkshire and the north-west? Certain parts of the park qualify for grants given by RDAs, but other parts do not. Will she consider that particular problem?

Margaret Beckett: I shall certainly check what the hon. Gentleman says about your ruling, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the matter is for Departments to determine, but I shall look into it.
	Secondly, we are conscious of the problems faced by areas such as the Peak park. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality discussed that with the relevant chairs of RDAs only yesterday. Although I recognise that hon. Members get upset about the use of what they regard as jargon, it is sometimes hard to explain organisational change in any other way. We are anxious to encourage partnership working among and with the RDAs.

Chris McCafferty: I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular her proposals to prioritise access to transport and affordable housing. Is she aware that £2 million has been invested in rural transport in my constituency in the past 18 months? The improvement in the quality of life of my constituents has been immeasurable. Is she also aware of the housing problems that arise for people born and bred in semi-rural areas, like Hebden Bridge in my constituency, that have become tourist honeypots? Will the new agency prioritise and address those issues of affordable housing in such areas?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her words, which are in stark contrast to those of Conservative Front-Bench Members. I do indeed recognise the huge difference made by the resources that have been put, for example, into rural transport, which has certainly undergone a transformation. I share her concern about access to affordable housing, about which the Conservative party seems to have nothing to say, except to try to pretend that it would all be in greenbelt areas so nobody wants any of it, which is not a very constructive approach. I also understand and share my hon. Friend's concern that we should carry on making such improvements, and we will certainly continue to do what we can.

David Curry: The right hon. Lady constantly used the word "delivery". Is she aware that delivery depends on reliable IT systems that do not fail? The Rural Payments Agency is under strain and the cattle tracing service has been criticised. The besetting sin of this Government is introducing schemes before they can deliver them, as with the whole tax credit system. Will she make sure that nothing is introduced until she is absolutely certain that it can be delivered?

Margaret Beckett: Some of the criticisms made of the cattle tracing service had validity but are well out of date. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that successful delivery depends on reliable IT, not least because, as he will probably recognise, when our Department was set up not only did neither of its constituent parts have reliable IT, but they could not talk to each other, so we are very mindful of the need for IT to underpin successful delivery of services.

Paddy Tipping: The final sentence of my right hon. Friend's statement stressed implementation. These are major changes for the Department and the various agencies involved, and they require primary legislation according to a timetable yet to be ascertained. What mechanisms and management structures will be put in place to handle those major changes and make them successful?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of what the Government are trying to achieve. We will be making much more information available to Members in, I hope, the near future. We believe and hope that a number of changes on the ground can begin next April, but as he says, changing the legal structures will require primary legislation, and obviously that depends on the Government's overall approach. I believe that we will begin to see differences next spring.

Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome the additional £2 million for Business Link announced by the Secretary of State, which is probably just as well as there will be few farmers left in Devon and we will need other businesses. Can she speak to the other agencies that may be undermining her efforts? Royal Mail is about to reduce postal collections in Teignbridge and south Devon; BT is shutting and removing telephone boxes; and the Post Office is about to close seven post offices.

Margaret Beckett: Contrary to the carping that we hear across the Floor of the House, very many people in the farming community fully recognise not only that this Government have done an enormous amount to help and support British farming, but that the changes that we have negotiated and are putting in place will help to create a sounder future for the farming community over the next half-century and beyond, not least because the resources that it will receive will be given in return for public goods and are therefore much more likely to be accepted and welcomed by the public.
	With regard to the hon. Gentleman's further comments, I am of course mindful that changes are taking place in rural areas, but I have already pointed out how much the Government are already doing to try to help to support rural post offices, which were one of his examples. He must be well aware of the changes that took place before we came to power, not all of which we can reverse.

David Drew: I am not sure whether I heard my right hon. Friend mention rural governance in her statement, but I know that she will appreciate the importance of parish and town councils, in which I declare an interest. Does she accept that there is still a problem in rural Britain regarding the capacity of parish and town councils and the level of disagreement that sometimes takes over? Will she make sure that resources are put into the first layer of our democracy, because those bodies are, and will remain, very important?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that there is an enormously important and valuable role for parish councils. He will be familiar with the quality parish council initiative to which we have often referred in the House. I am also mindful of the fact that it is often at that level that the voice of the rural populace can most clearly be heard. I assure him that capacity-building, support and training is very much part of the picture that we hope to create.

Anthony Steen: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has considered getting rid of her rural policy and the galaxy of institutions and public officials that surround it, and whether the people living in the countryside might be better off as a result.

Margaret Beckett: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman means. All I can say is that the Conservative party did their best to get rid of the prosperity of rural areas when they were in power.

David Taylor: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the statement; it reminds us why many of us voted for her 10 years ago in the leadership election. She is right to refer to the priorities of rural business, rural exclusion and rural environment, and she cites tranquillity as an important characteristic of the countryside. Where in her Department is the co-ordinated liaison with the aviation industry to try to tackle the problems of those villages that lie under flight paths or are scattered around regional airports, where environmental controls are particularly defective?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the statement. I understand his point keenly, because shortly after the planes that he refers to fly over villages in his constituency, they fly over mine. I am therefore mindful of his concerns. I simply say to him that we endeavour to maintain the right balance between economic development and social and environmental concerns—it is not easy, but we will continue to try to do so.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and the Secretary of State's inadequate reply, will she at least seriously consider shutting down the talking shop regional assembly in the south-west and the regional development agency, with all their glossy brochures and strategy documents which do absolutely nothing for the people who live and work in the south-west, and instead spend the time and effort on cutting taxes and reducing regulations on those people?

Margaret Beckett: We are doing a great deal of work on whether and how we can achieve a better, more consistent and light-touch approach to regulation. The right hon. Gentleman may want all the voices for rural areas—what he calls a talking shop—silenced and the regional development agencies closed down, but many people in rural areas, as elsewhere, recognise the valuable and viable role that those bodies can play. Maybe they do not like to say so to the Conservative party because they know that it is pledged to abolish them.

David Kidney: The general approach of much more devolution has to be right, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, but will it place new and greater demands on the rural proofing that has been so well championed by the existing Countryside Agency? If so, what does she think will happen to rural proofing in future?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously, responsibility at Government level remains with my Department, but we believe that a new, smaller and more focused Countryside Agency will be able to act very effectively as an independent adviser, advocate and watchdog for the interests of the countryside. That is certainly my hope and my intention.

James Paice: The Secretary of State referred to the valuable role of woodlands in tackling climate change, but not to their valuable role in the landscape, the forestry industry and local economies. How does she square her comments with the fact that private planting of woodland is at an all-time low and the losses being incurred by Forest Enterprise are at an all-time high, at the expense of the taxpayer? What is her strategy for putting that right?

Margaret Beckett: We are looking at how we can best develop and make use of the economic opportunity, and indeed the social as well as the environmental opportunities, of woodland. The policy responsibilities for the Forestry Commission will in future move to my Department, but the commission will work with the other agencies to establish delivery of policies on the ground in rural areas, and it will look afresh at the approach to woodland.

Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the need to transform our armed forces to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Before I do so, however, I know that the House would want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve their country in the armed forces, as well as those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and British industry. Their reputation is second to none. The transformation that I am setting out today will help to ensure that our armed forces can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges they are likely to face.
	The Government are absolutely committed to Britain's defence and to our armed forces. That was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of the Budget settlement for defence. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year it has been possible to make even more resources available to defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for over 20 years—a defence budget rising by £3.7 billion. It is this sustained investment that makes possible the transformation to which the Government and the armed forces are committed.
	In the 1998 strategic defence review we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-cold war world. We built on this with the SDR new chapter, published after the appalling events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed this direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003. That White Paper makes it clear that the threats to Britain's interests in the 21st century are far more complex than was foreseen after the disintegration of the Soviet empire. That is why the defence White Paper signalled that we should continue to modernise the structure of our armed forces, embrace new technology and focus on the means by which our armed forces can work together with other Government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.
	Our armed forces have enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation. It will see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people—the inputs that characterised defence planning in the past—to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes, and on the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and network enabled capability. We measured numbers of people and platforms in the cold war because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces. That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on.
	The capability of our armed forces is growing year by year as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce results that have changed the nature of modem warfare. These new capabilities involve the rapid communication of actionable intelligence to the commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects, involving all three services and our allies acting efficiently and effectively together.
	We are also able to respond more rapidly to crises through the improved deployability of our forces. We saw that in 2003 when forces were moved to the Gulf in less than half the time that it took 12 years before. With better target acquisition and precision weaponry, our Air Force was able to hit its targets with less ordnance— and hence fewer aircraft—than in the first Gulf war. The same tasks can now be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our armed forces.
	The defence White Paper makes it clear that this shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Drawing on our experience of operations since the strategic defence review, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces have been identifying which parts of the armed forces are most in demand, and which are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our armed forces can retain maximum effectiveness. I have set out those plans in detail in the Command Paper on future capabilities, which is published today.
	The majority of reductions will affect not the front line, but support operations. We will exploit greater efficiencies in the delivery of logistic support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate this process over the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All this money will be recycled to enhance our front-line capabilities and other modernisation initiatives.
	Of course, we are investing more new money in defence. This investment will, for the Army, enable us to fund its transformation into a force which is structured and equipped to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent operations across the full spectrum of tasks. This involves a shift from the current structure, which is strong at the heavy and light ends of the spectrum but thinner in medium forces, to one that is better balanced right across the capability spectrum.
	The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium-weight brigades, based around the future rapid effects system family of medium-weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the air assault and commando brigades. We launched the assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year.
	The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new light mobile artillery weapon system. At the same time, we will seek to improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range. The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year, which is an important first step down this path.
	That will be followed by improvements in our missile inventory, through the progressive introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry anti-tank guided weapon—Javelin—and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS 90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.
	Critical as these new weapons systems are, at least as important are the changes that we are making to enhance the Army's network enabled capability. Digitised communications systems provide the network links. The entry into service of Bowman at the tactical level, and the Cormorant and Falcon systems at the operational and strategic levels, will represent a step change in our capability to pass data between commanders and the front line. We are also continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as Soothsayer, and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the Watchkeeper unmanned air vehicle. I announced yesterday that the preferred bidder for Watchkeeper is Thales Defence Ltd. This will provide battlefield commanders with high quality, timely and accurate information. The new joint surveillance aircraft Astor recently made its first test flight successfully.
	Our battlefield and maritime helicopter forces, arguably the most capable in Europe, have demonstrated their versatility by supporting the full spectrum of recent operations. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest some £3 billion in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. This substantial investment within a relatively short time frame will make it possible to produce a future helicopter fleet focused on the key capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, central to future expeditionary operations.
	The dominance in the air by alliance and coalition air forces shown in recent conflicts, together with our judgment about the likely threat on deployed operations, and our continued investment in Typhoon and its advanced air-to-air weapons, mean that we can plan to reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence. We will meet our requirement in future from 24 Rapier fire units and 84 high velocity missile launchers. Rapier will be deployed by the Army, with the RAF Regiment relinquishing the role. Ground-based air defence will be commanded by a new joint headquarters within the RAF command structure. We are reviewing the implications of these force structure changes for our future equipment plans. In the meantime, I can announce the procurement of additional missiles worth about £180 million for the high velocity missile system.
	I come now to the infantry. We currently provide for operational and geographical variety for the infantry by moving battalions between locations and roles every few years, which is known as the infantry arms plot. This process inevitably takes battalions out of the order of battle while they are moving and training for new roles. It also adds to turbulence. We need to ensure greater capability from the infantry, improved continuity, better careers for infantrymen and more stability for their families. The infantry arms plot will therefore be phased out.
	In addition, as a result of the improving security situation in Northern Ireland, we announced last month a reduction in the number of battalions committed to the Province by two. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the General Officer Commanding have conducted a further review of security requirements. As a result, I can today announce another reduction by a further two battalions, which will take place in the autumn. That will reduce the overall requirement for infantry battalions from 40 to 36. This reduction will comprise one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.
	Those changes necessitate a new infantry structure that must preserve the best aspects of the regimental system, but produce an organisation capable of adapting for the future. The new structure will be based on regiments of two or more battalions, in largely fixed locations, allowing individuals to move easily between those battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked out by the Army and announced by the end of the year.
	The Army board wants to establish an infantry organisation that will last for the foreseeable future. The manpower released by the reduction of four battalions will be redistributed across the Army to strengthen existing infantry units, but it will also be used elsewhere among the most heavily committed specialists such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. The overall size of the Army will be around 102,000.
	Our plans for the Royal Navy involve the further development of a versatile, expeditionary force capable of operating at distance from the United Kingdom and focused on delivering effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint combat aircraft will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. On Monday, I announced the extension of the assessment phase to take forward further design work on the new carriers in the run-up to our main investment decision and that the principles of an alliancing approach have been agreed with our industrial partners.We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which was delivered to the Royal Navy last week, will provide a step change in our ability to launch the Commando Brigade and support other forces ashore.
	By ensuring that our major warships are effectively networked and supported, we can deliver more capability from fewer platforms. Developments in network enabled capability—linking sensors and weapon systems—mean that we can meet future area air defence and command and control requirements from a force of eight Type 45 destroyers. With those hugely capable ships currently under construction, we can plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers, HMS Cardiff, HMS Newcastle and HMS Glasgow, by the end of 2005. We are still in the early stages of an ambitious procurement programme and are working with industry to define a timetable that best matches our capability requirements and the need for steady work in both the shipbuilding and repair industries.
	The potential submarine threat to most future UK operations is likely to be low. Where a threat exists, however, we will still need the full range of advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities to deal with it. We have therefore decided to reduce our overall numbers of platforms optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low-frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates, HMS Norfolk, HMS Marlborough and HMS Grafton, by March 2006. That shift of emphasis also allows us to meet our maritime reconnaissance needs with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. That requirement could be met in future by a fleet of around 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, which are more capable, subject to industry demonstrating satisfactory performance at acceptable prices.
	We require a total of eight nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new Astute class boats will hugely enhance the contribution made by nuclear-powered attack submarines across the spectrum of operations. Solid progress has been made on the first of class following the restructuring of the project, and work continues on boats two and three, as well as on long lead items for boat four, but more remains to be done before production orders can be finalised. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles and improvements to submarine communications to give our current and future submarines an improved land attack capability.
	Our mine countermeasure vessels have made a valuable contribution to recent operations. Against that changing threat, we must retain a balanced force of eight Hunt class and eight Sandown class vessels. We plan to pay off HMS Inverness, HMS Bridport and HMS Sandown by April 2005. The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels, HMS Brecon, HMS Dulverton and HMS Cottesmore by April 2007. As a consequence of those changes, the manpower of the Royal Navy will reduce to 36,000 over the next four years.
	Air power is critical to the prosecution of modem warfare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, an accelerating transformation of our air power will enable quicker, more precise and more decisive operations at range, delivered by multi-role Typhoon and joint combat aircraft equipped with highly capable weapons. The Typhoon programme is now moving forward towards initial operating capability, with indications that the aircraft is demonstrating excellent performance and good reliability. We expect to sign a contract for the second tranche of Typhoon aircraft as soon as we complete satisfactory negotiations over price and capability.
	The investment in our air forces is already producing substantial improvements in existing aircraft. The Tornado GR4 is now one of the most potent offensive aircraft systems in the world, fully capable of day and night operations in all weathers. The Harrier GR9 development programme is on course to deliver a significantly more capable platform with much wider versatility, including for carrier-borne operations. The tactical information exchange capability project will examine how the effectiveness of the GR4 and GR9 can be further enhanced by improving their networked capability. The Tornado F3 aircraft is now equipped with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and the world-leading advanced short-range air-to-air missiles and is fully networked through the joint tactical information distribution system. The new Storm Shadow long-range air-to-surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf war. New precision-guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short term.
	With those significant advances in capability, we now judge that we must reduce the types and overall numbers of the RAF fast jet force, providing a firm baseline for transition to the multi-role era. We will reduce the number of the air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron disbanded in 2007. Those changes in the force structure and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008, which will also allow us to close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields. Following an extended period of consultations, we have decided to rationalise the basing requirements of a number of RAF logistic support and communication units. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces is writing today to those hon. Members whose constituencies may be affected.
	The RAF also plays an essential enabling role in support of expeditionary operations through its strategic and tactical airlift capability. The core of that capability remains the fleet of C-130 aircraft and, from 2011, the A400M. To accommodate larger items, we were considering the options to retain C-17s after the A400M enters service, and I am pleased to announce that we intend to buy the current fleet of four at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft, bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.
	Amidst those structural and major equipment changes, we must never neglect the more immediate needs of our armed forces in the field and in particular their personal equipment. We already have a major programme under way in the light of experience from Operation Telic, and I can announce some further enhancements. This year, we will procure additional light machine guns for the infantry, together with night vision and target acquisition systems for forces in land, sea and air environments, as well as further enhancements to our special forces capabilities. We will also make major enhancements to our asset tracking capability to ensure that the right matériel is in the right place at the right time—we have learned the lessons from recent operations in Iraq.
	Alongside the modernisation of our conventional forces, as set out in last year's White Paper, the Government remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent, including making the necessary investment at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, and to keep open the options for a successor to Trident until a decision is required, probably in the next Parliament.
	In addition to the reductions in the armed forces' manpower, we envisage reductions of around 10,000 in civilian jobs. Those reductions flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the Department's change programme and other initiatives. The reductions in armed forces and civilian manpower will be achieved, as far as practicable, through natural turnover. We will also retrain and redeploy personnel wherever possible. We are committed to enabling our people to develop their skills and abilities, so that those who leave are well equipped for life outside defence and those who stay are properly trained for their roles. However, redundancies will inevitably occur, and we will use the normal consultation processes to achieve them.
	The White Paper makes it clear that our reserve forces have evolved to become an integral part of the UK's military capability. We learned many lessons from operations in Iraq about how we mobilise our reserves and how we must strengthen the relationship between the services, reservists, their families and their employers. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), will make an announcement tomorrow about our plans to consult on proposals to update financial assistance to reservists when they are called into service and compensate employers who incur additional costs as a result of their staff being called up.
	Some will claim that the defence budget is under such pressure that it is impossible to sustain the Department's forward equipment programme. In fact, the spend with industry will continue at the same level as in recent years. It is of the utmost importance that industry takes the maximum advantage of that substantial investment to produce what the armed forces need at a price that the country can afford. We will take forward our defence industrial policy and implement those changes in conjunction with industry to ensure a healthy and competitive defence industry, one that continues to play the leading role in our economy, a leading role that it enjoys today. I am confident that it will respond to this challenge.
	For the third successive spending review, the Government have been able to announce real growth in the defence budget. That is without precedent since the mid-1980s. Even with these additional funds, it is necessary to secure maximum benefit from efficiencies and make choices to ensure that our force structure matches the requirements of today's security environment. The plans that I have announced today show the Government's determination to make the choices necessary to ensure that the real growth in defence expenditure is targeted at what the armed forces require in the 21st century, rather than what they have inherited from the 20th. That will ensure that the armed forces are equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future the tasks that they have undertaken so admirably and successfully in recent years.

Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State, through gritted teeth, for allowing us sight of his statement every bit of 35 minutes before he rose to make it. I join him in his praise for, and commendation of, the magnificent work done by our armed forces, which does such huge credit and brings such distinction to our country.
	We welcome some of the steps that are to be taken in the rebalancing of our forces for the threats and operations of today and tomorrow, and we accept the need for hard choices to deal with some of the legacy issues. We also recognise the importance of network- enabled capability as a next step in the development of the armed forces. But, however the Secretary of State tries to present it today, this announcement is essentially about cuts. The servicemen and women whose battalions are to be disbanded, planes grounded and ships scrapped are the same men and women who bailed out the Government over their dismal failures and incompetence at the time of foot and mouth disease, and bailed out the Home Office over the fire strike. These are the same people who brought peace to Sierra Leone and Bosnia, saved Sierra Leone from almost certain self-destruction, helped to secure peace and good order in East Timor, brought freedom to Kosovo, helped push the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and liberated Iraq and brought an increasing security to its people. Some of them are fighting a largely unsung battle in Basra today, in a very difficult environment.
	These young men and women, at all levels of all three services, will feel themselves to have been betrayed, politically and morally. Today the nation will be dismayed that its armed forces, whom it loves and admires, who have repeatedly been deployed at the drop of the hat all over the world on the Government's instructions, and who have brought such distinction and success to Britons internationally, should be treated in such an underhand way.
	Most of the current difficulties in defence are entirely of the Government's making. The promise of a strategic defence review to restructure our forces for the post-cold war world was undermined by a defence budget reduced in real terms. The SDR was never properly costed or properly funded. When the new chapter was written after 11 September, as the Labour-dominated Defence Committee has pointed out,
	"ambition continued to run ahead of delivery".
	Only a few weeks ago, the Select Committee lambasted the Ministry of Defence for doing away with existing equipment before replacement systems had been procured and tested, failing to tackle manpower shortages, and underestimating the importance of boots on the ground. Does the Secretary of State deny that these latest cutbacks will seriously damage our military capability and our ability to project power for several years, while we await the arrival of largely unproven technology?
	Despite all the Secretary of State's extravagant claims to be increasing it, there is in reality a deep crisis in the defence budget. According to the latest report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour came to power in 1997. Is it not clear that the defence budget is decreasing, not increasing? If it is not decreasing, why did the Chancellor promise £31.8 billion for defence in 2004–05 in his 2002 spending review, but only £29.8 billion in his latest—a real-terms cut of 6.44 per cent.? Under this Government, the defence budget has sunk so deeply into the red that the equipment overspend is in excess of £1 billion per annum. That is hardly a sparkling example of the efficiency of smart procurement.
	Today, is the Secretary of State not taking his most reckless step so far—cutting tanks, ships, aircraft and men to make immediate savings, while making vague promises that new weapons will be delivered at some point in the dim and distant future? Is this not the worst form of post-dated cheque?
	The Government parrot the mantra that numbers of platforms do not count, because modern warships are so much more powerful. Yet the same warship cannot be in two places at once, and the fewer the platforms the greater the proportionate loss when one is damaged or disabled. Does the Secretary of State accept that with the cuts in the frigates and destroyers, the fleet will not be able to fulfil the broad range of tasks assigned to it, which it performs so brilliantly with so few ships? How will the minehunters be able to continue the many tasks that they have been assigned? Can the Secretary of State confirm that only one carrier at a time will ever be in commission in future, and that without proper air cover? At the very least, the Government should give the Navy what it wants, serious land-attack capability for the reduced number of Type 45 destroyers, by fitting them with the tactical Tomahawk cruise missile.
	We welcome the work that is being done to modernise the way in which the Army organises itself in this expeditionary age in which it has been so regularly and invaluably used. However, we consider the reduction in the size of the Army in general, and the infantry in particular, from a manpower target of 108,500 to the present size of 103,500 and a proposed established strength of 102,000—a cut of 6,500 men—to be extremely unwise. All the evidence and all the experience shows that declining infantry numbers will leave less time for vital training to keep up essential skills and less time for people to spend with their families, and will inevitably lead to an increase in the depressing cycle of overstretch as the infantry struggles with the many tasks that the Government give it.
	Superficially, the proposals for large regiments have some logic and may appear attractive. Indeed, there is every reason for the Army to increase its usability, and to modernise the way in which it organises itself in this expeditionary age. My party believes, however, that at the same time we must at all costs retain that which makes the British soldier the extraordinary animal he is. The Secretary of State must remember that in these regiments are some of the qualities that set the British Army apart from all others, and that therefore the significance of the regimental system must be retained in any restructuring that takes place. All that these regiments stand for, and all that they have given over the years in the fighting efficiency of the Army, is not to be lightly tossed away as it has been this afternoon.
	Does not the Government's astonishingly keen desire to present themselves as a wholly owned subsidiary of the American armed forces, and their attempt to keep pace with our most regular coalition partner, threaten some of the British military's more excellent traditional strengths? And what about homeland defence? How many civil contingency units are organised, manned, equipped and trained to deal now with a major terrorist incident in the UK?
	Does the removal of responsibility for ground-based air defence from the Royal Air Force regiment to the Army not sound the death knell for a regiment dedicated to the defence of valuable air assets? Will not the accelerated scrapping of the Jaguar fleet deprive the Royal Air Force of an invaluable, cost-effective, recently upgraded ground attack aircraft? Over what time scale will the substantial cuts in manpower take place in the RAF and when does he expect to follow up the closure of RAF Coltishall with the announcement of further RAF airfield closures?
	However powerful new ships may be, they cannot be in two places at once. However smart new systems may be, they cannot replace troops on the ground. As the implications of what the Secretary of State has begun to announce today sink in, will it not seem extraordinary to the British people that there should be such deep cuts across the board when our armed forces have never been so busy or in such demand, and at a time of such an accelerated threat?
	The incoming Conservative Government—[Interruption.] The incoming Conservative Government will fully fund and equip our armed forces to carry out their agreed tasks and commitments. We will see to it that order and competence are restored to the management of defence and particularly to the business of procurement and logistics. If we are required to increase our defence spending, increase it we will.

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted to see from his closing observation that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour. What he has lost in the course of his remarks today is any credibility. If he is going to challenge the Government's spending plans and how those plans will meet defence needs in future, he has to say how he will fill the hole in spending created by his shadow Chancellor, who has made it clear that the Conservative party's spending plans involve a freeze in defence spending. Under its plans, by the time the substantial increase that the Government will commit to defence expenditure reached its conclusion, there would already be a gap of £2.6 billion.
	From the hon. Gentleman's comments today, and earlier today on the radio, it seems that he is committed to reversing all the adjustments that we propose to make in defence capabilities. How much will that cost? What kind of calculations have the Opposition done on those arrangements? If he is to talk to the men and women of the armed forces about their future, he has to explain where the money is coming from. He has to explain to his shadow Chancellor what it means exactly to freeze expenditure—not the substantial increase in spending that the Government propose.
	That is a serious problem for the hon. Gentleman. His own leader, when asked how much he would spend on defence, said:
	"I can't tell you how much we will be spending on defence".
	He did not know. The shadow Chancellor says that there will be a freeze in defence spending. What has been the reaction of the hon. Gentleman? He says that the plans are outrageous. What is the policy of the Conservative party? What exactly is it saying to the men and women of Britain's armed forces?
	It is no good Conservative Members coming here and ritually saying how much they support the men and women of the armed forces. They have to explain how they are going to achieve that. The men and women of the armed forces live and operate in the real world. They have a real job to do with real equipment. It is no good coming along with fantasy figures, pretending that all these things can be restored, when there is a huge hole in Conservative spending plans.
	I would have hoped that, after three years as Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Gentleman realised the difference between out-turn spending in defence—the money that has been spent on operations—and planned expenditure. I would have thought that, during those three years, the excellent civil servants in the Ministry of Defence would have explained that to him but unfortunately he did not appear to have learned the lesson.
	One of the difficulties for Conservative Members is that, if they attack the proposals for restructuring our armed forces, they are attacking the Army board's proposals. I accept responsibility for these changes. I think that they are good for the men and women who are serving in our armed forces, but those who are tempted to attack the proposals need to explain to those men and women why the Army board has recommended those proposals, in the interests of the men and women of the armed forces and their families. That is vital to future capability—not dwelling in the past, not existing in some idyll of the past, which Conservative Members seem to believe is appropriate in respect of defence, but working out what is important for the future of the men and women in our armed forces.
	The same arguments apply to each of the points that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to the Royal Navy. The proposals are strongly supported by the First Sea Lord, who recognises the importance of modernising our armed forces. There are similar changes in relation to the Royal Air Force.
	The hon. Gentleman has come to the House over and over again and talked about overstretch of the infantry, but the pressure points in relation to our Army personnel are precisely in the areas that we intend to strengthen. We have a reduced requirement in Northern Ireland for four infantry battalions. We will use those posts to reinforce existing infantry units and to ensure that the logisticians, the engineers, the signallers and the intelligence people, all of whom have been under huge pressure in recent years, have more resources at their disposal. That is an entirely sensible arrangement. For him to talk about cutting infantry battalions as if that will add to overstretch is nonsense. If he thought about it for half a second, he would realise that.
	What we see here is a feeble Opposition. If they ran our armed forces, they would end up sailing wooden ships. We would have squadrons of Sopwith Camels. Frankly, we would still have the cavalry. Those are the kinds of armed forces that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would visit upon his country.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and pay tribute to the members of our armed forces.
	Under Labour, our armed forces have seen an unprecedented tempo of action not only in combat in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in filling vital gaps in the public services at home during the fuel crisis, foot and mouth disease and the firemen's strike. However, today, members of the armed forces will feel little reward for their unparalleled commitment. There is more money but the Government are desperately trying to do more with less. I agree with the MOD that there is a need to look at the defence budget, but Labour seems to be looking in the wrong places.
	The most unbalanced part of the defence budget is the procurement programme—it is not infantry regiments, warships or RAF units. When it comes to cutting costs—or cutting corners—it is easier to cut current capabilities than future ones.Future capabilities take a long time to come on stream. Cuts are made instantly.
	We welcome the decision on carriers that was announced today. It is right to take time to look at that, but why cut the number of surface ships and why order Type 45s without land attack capability? We welcome the decision on the C-17 announced by the Government today. We should have bought the four in the first place but which RAF bases are the Government considering cutting and why proceed with so many Typhoons that may never have an enemy to fight against?
	On the Army, why invest so much in network-centric capabilities and effects-based operations, when the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that winning the peace is more difficult than winning wars? That depends on low-tech soldiering, not high-tech weapons. We agree with getting rid of the arms plot but why cut the troop numbers? Which battalions are now under review?
	The UK has a deserved reputation in conflict prevention and in peacekeeping. Spending on prevention should increase, so that we do not need to spend so much on cleaning up when it is too late.
	The Secretary of State talks about redundancies. Can he give a cast-iron commitment today that no individual currently or recently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan will receive compulsory redundancy as a result of the announcements today? Does that mean that manning control is back? If 10,000 civil service jobs are to go, does that mean more work for uniformed members of the armed forces? Our armed forces are ridiculously overstretched, so why not use spare capacity to reduce overstretch? We do not know what the future holds. A little spare capacity would be a good thing. We do not need to issue redundancy notices.
	The Secretary of State, however long he is in his current job, will be judged on whether he has the balance right—high tech on one side, troops on the other. The Liberal Democrats believe that today he has got that balance wrong.

Geoff Hoon: I also look forward to a detailed assessment by the Liberal Democrats of their spending proposals on defence. So far, they have promised a lot but they have not delivered a great deal of detail. I know that the hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place but, if he will forgive me, I sometimes wonder where his head is. I was somewhat puzzled that he started by criticising our expenditure on new equipment and then immediately—almost without a breath—suggested the purchase of an extremely expensive piece of equipment that he thought we had failed to announce. When he looks at his remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he might note a certain inconsistency about that.
	As the hon. Gentleman travels the country, telling the workers of BAE Systems and other companies such as Rolls-Royce that the Liberal Democrats intend to cut remaining versions of Typhoon—which, incidentally, will be a multi-role version that is capable of ground attack, a rather vital military requirement at present, and is in no way outdated or redundant—he will be able to explain to the tens of thousands who work in the high-tech defence industry that the Liberal Democrats also want us to go back to wooden aircraft, presumably for flying across the fields of France. The idea that Typhoon—the latest and best fast jet available anywhere in the world—can be cancelled is nonsense and if he thought about it for a second, he would realise that.
	As for redundancies and so on, there will have to be a reduction in numbers consistent with my announcement but I am confident that that can be done largely through natural wastage and confident that we can do it in consultation with the people affected.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving real growth in the defence budget for the third year running, which will be welcomed by the defence community. I agree about the importance of achieving value for money in support services to make way for expenditure on new equipment. Will he confirm his commitment to awarding contracts for support services, particularly for surface ship refits, on the basis of competition, rather than allocation? Does he understand the concerns of people in Plymouth that that was not borne out in the recent award of the contract for HMS Edinburgh?

Geoff Hoon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful and measured approach to these difficult and complex issues. I agree that it is important that we look at the way in which defence funds are used effectively and competitively to provide the best equipment and the best repair. I have indicated that I will be willing to discuss with her the basis of the decision in relation to HMS Edinburgh. I understand why she makes such effective representations on behalf of her constituents.

Michael Jack: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Will he put on record the numbers of aircraft that he is negotiating to purchase in tranche 2? Given the length of time it is taking him to negotiate best value in this context, will he also tell the House what are the barriers to further progress? When does he expect those matters to be resolved and when will the four partner nations be able to announce the purchase of tranche 2?

Geoff Hoon: I am consistently grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interest in Typhoon. I share his view that it is a vital asset for Britain's future military capabilities. Seven aircraft have now been received by the RAF and are performing better than anticipated, but these are commercial issues. The contract for tranche 2 will be signed when I judge that we have an offer on the table that is affordable and delivers the kind of capability that I judge to be necessary for the future of this country. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's help in persuading the parties to the contract to produce a sensible proposal.

Bruce George: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is déjà vu all over again? I have listened on at least 10 occasions when announcements of cuts have been followed by promises of great improvements; I need to be reassured. Will he keep his diary free for the first week in September, as we will be inviting him before the Defence Committee to explain his statement, where he will face not rhetoric but real and serious questions? I accept that some of what my right hon. Friend said is good; I hope he accepts that. But who was the idiot who thought that we could cut the infantry at a time when the pressure on it was enormous? Has he consulted Gerry Adams or maybe the Fire Brigades Union about whether they will behave themselves over the next few years?
	Finally, he may not know that the Staffordshire Regiment is to celebrate its 300th anniversary next year. Will it do so? Or, having seen off the French, Germans, Americans, Bolsheviks, Burmese, Zulus and assorted African and Indian armies, will it see off or be seen off by my right hon. Friend's Government?

Geoff Hoon: I always enjoy my right hon. Friend's rhetoric and I accept that, during the deliberations of the Defence Committee, we will avoid rhetoric. I look forward, on a date of his choosing in September, to explaining to the Defence Committee in greater detail than I have done today why it is necessary to restructure the armed forces in the way the Government are proposing.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question on the Staffordshire Regiment? Will he accept an invitation from me to come to Staffordshire in March next year to celebrate the 300th anniversary? Will he give a speech, assuring the people of Staffordshire that the regiment in which they have such wonderful pride will have a fourth centenary?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has been an absolutely consistent supporter of the armed forces and has set out on many occasions in my hearing the importance of the Government supporting those men and women in their difficult and dangerous job. This restructuring is in order to allow those men and women to continue to do their job in the 21st century. The world has changed beyond recognition in terms of the kind of external threats faced by the men and women in our armed forces and by their families. Frankly, the idea that we can move those men and their families around every two years for essentially traditional reasons is long past its sell-by date. It is absolutely vital that we provide greater consistency in terms of our future requirements. As I said in my statement, identity is vital, as is maintaining the regimental tradition and history by which the hon. Gentleman rightly sets such store. There is no reason why, under our proposals, those traditions and that history cannot be maintained in the course of the restructuring.

Rachel Squire: Once again, I very much welcome the award of the work on HMS Edinburgh and HMS Walney to Rosyth dockyard—purely on the basis of much deserved merit—earlier this week. But I should greatly welcome a full and independent investigation into whether a competitive level playing field has existed between the two yards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in terms of the tremendous asset, standard and merit of our armed forces—particularly in peacekeeping operations—the key has been having skilled men and women on the ground, relating to the local population wherever they are in the world? What assurance can he give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady but we have precious little time left for questions and an awful lot of people are seeking to catch my eye. Many will be disappointed if we do not have much shorter questions and, perhaps, short questions from the Secretary of State.

Geoff Hoon: I will also try a few answers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has consistently supported the armed forces and I know that she gives a great deal of her time travelling around the world, seeing our forces deployed in a number of different theatres. On warship maintenance, perhaps I should invite her to the same meeting that will be attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), where we can discuss those matters in the round. Inevitably in a competitive environment, there will be winners and losers. But I certainly agree that we should regard this restructuring as part of the need to ensure that Britain's armed forces are equipped and trained to deal with the challenges that they face in this new and very difficult century.

Angus Robertson: This statement has confirmed that the sword of Damocles hangs over every single one of Scotland's historic regiments. One will be scrapped entirely and all the rest will be amalgamated into synthetic regional units; that signals the end of Scotland's six distinct infantry regiments. The Ministry of Defence also confirmed in a letter to me the devastating news for my constituency of a cut in the number of Nimrod aircraft at RAF Kinloss, the further privatisation of services at Lossiemouth and an uncertain future for the RAF Regiment. Both Kinloss and Lossiemouth will be reviewed with a view to making substantial reductions. Any closure or run-down of those bases has been—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question, please.

Angus Robertson: The local head of the enterprise company has said that any run-down or closure will have the biggest impact on the highland economy in living memory. Does the Secretary of State agree that itwould indeed be a terrible blow to the local economy?

Geoff Hoon: I have always had some difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's arguments about defence, given that his party is committed to pulling out of NATO. If we did pull out, we would immediately no longer need the reconnaissance aircraft that he is championing. He should consider carefully what I said about regimental identity in Scotland. I am confident that, through these new and larger organisations, we can find a way to look after the interests of the men and women currently serving in the armed forces, and to provide them with a proper and sustained future. If the hon. Gentleman had any concern whatsoever for the people serving in those regiments, he would recognise the importance of these changes.

Chris McCafferty: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on winning a substantial increase in defence funding, but will reducing by four the number of battalions also mean that all un-amalgamated battalions will be re-organised into larger regiments? Will that proposed reduction change the received wisdom in the Ministry of Defence that an infantry battalion should always have a clear 24 months between operational tours? I ask that question because my own local regiment, the Duke of Wellington, which has a history of more than 300 years, is returning to Iraq in October after a stand-down time of only 14 months. If the answer to my questions is yes, will my right hon. Friend ensure that relevant Army officers are allowed to participate in discussions about the future of their battalions?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. I should emphasise that in essence, the posts of the four infantry battalions no longer required for duty in Northern Ireland will be redistributed to strengthen existing battalions and to provide extra resources for those elements of our armed forces that have been under the most pressure in recent times. This entirely sensible and pragmatic change is necessary to ensure that the pressures about which Members have expressed concern are alleviated.
	On the re-organisation of single-battalion regiments, there is a hybrid structure throughout the United Kingdom, in that some regiments consist of a number of battalions and others of a single battalion. It is certainly the Army Board's ambition to create a new structure in which single-battalion regiments are subsumed into larger organisations. But as I have emphasised, there is no reason why traditional regimental histories and distinctive uniforms cannot be maintained within that new structure and those larger organisations.

Peter Viggers: We support the concept of transformation—led by NATO's Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, Virginia—with which our troops are very well attuned. Such transformation will bring higher technology, greater flexibility and an asymmetrical capacity, but is the Secretary of State aware that if we prepare for it by cutting equipment and manpower, there will be an immediate defence weakness and—perhaps more seriously—a continuing weakness that will take many years to rectify?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of NATO transformation, and the United Kingdom has led the way in ensuring that NATO's doctrine and military capabilities are transformed to face the challenge of the 21st century. But as he knows better than almost any other Member, NATO's capabilities are made up of contributions from nation states. If we fail to transform our own capabilities, we will be unable to offer the modern forces that we need to contribute, in order to allow NATO itself to develop and modernise. Such decisions have to be taken here and now in the United Kingdom; otherwise, we will be unable to make the effective contribution to NATO that the hon. Gentleman rightly says is necessary.

Eric Joyce: I commend my right hon. Friend on ending the arms plot and on stressing the importance of quality of life for serving personnel. Will he confirm that he will continue to invest in accommodation—the fundamental marker of troops' quality of life—which was disgracefully run down by the Tories when they were in government?

Geoff Hoon: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's observation, which is based on considerable experience. We need to continue to invest in armed forces' accommodation; indeed, that bequeathed to us in 1997 by the then Conservative Government was appalling. We have put in place a significant number of programmes to improve such accommodation, and it is highly necessary that we continue to improve it.

William Cash: The Secretary of State said that the details concerning the new organisation of infantry regiments will be worked out by the Army, and that an announcement will be made by the end of the year. He knows that a tremendous fight was previously put up to ensure that the Staffords were not reduced to a sludgy amalgam. Will he ensure that proper consultation takes place, and will he be taking personal responsibility for such matters or passing the buck?

Geoff Hoon: Of course I take personal responsibility, but there is another, equally important issue. If the hon. Gentleman's concerns about serving members of the armed forces are genuine, he will recognise that it is vital that we make these changes in the interests of those men and women and, crucially, of their families. The arms plot cannot be sustained in the 21st century. Servicemen and women's partners have jobs and their children are in school, so a degree of domestic stability is vital to allow them to serve their country so successfully. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about those people, he would support these changes.

Peter Pike: As a former national service Royal Marine, I should point out that no Army regiment has a greater reputation than the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and that it is able to recruit all its personnel from within the Lancashire area. May I assure my right hon. Friend that, despite what he said a few moments ago about maintaining uniforms and so on, his statement today will be regarded with grave concern in Lancashire?

Geoff Hoon: I had the privilege recently of meeting senior figures in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, and I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point about how successful it has been. But I am confident that within the reformed structure that the Army Board and I are advocating, the distinctive tradition of such regiments can be maintained and preserved.

Mike Hancock: I remind the Secretary of State of the fact that three naval bases are capable—[Interruption.] I am grateful for that invitation. If 11 fewer platforms will be available to the Navy by 2007, there must be serious concern about its ability to provide the capabilities that the Government require of it. What is the value of the cuts that he is making to the existing defence budget? Many of the people whom I represent regard those cuts as the price that they will have to pay for the failure of smart procurement to deliver the dividends that the Ministry of Defence promised.

Geoff Hoon: There are no cuts to the defence budget, and the figures given are clear. This Government are committed to increasing consistently the amount spent on defence, over a prolonged period of more than 20 years. On platforms, it is vital that the hon. Gentleman recognises—I know that he spends a lot of time thinking about these issues—that there has been an enormous change in terms of what modern equipment can do. If we continue to preserve the equipment that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex seems to think we should maintain for as long as we possibly can but that is increasingly inflexible and was designed for another era and another conflict, we will not be able to invest in the modern equipment that delivers the greater effects that can be achieved.
	An obvious example, which I mentioned in the statement, is the accuracy of modern ordnance. We no longer need to fly huge formations of bomber aircraft across targets in the hope that perhaps 10 per cent. of the bombs will hit. A single aircraft with a single weapon is usually enough to deal with that target in modern warfare. The effects created by a single aircraft or a single Royal Navy platform are now so remarkable that we necessarily can adjust our platforms to go on investing in modern technology that will deliver those modern effects.

Tam Dalyell: So following that, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), may I ask what is the use of Eurofighter, which is hugely expensive? Are we simply enmeshed in contracts that we cannot get out of?

Geoff Hoon: On the contrary, Eurofighter will be an aircraft for the 21st century. It will provide air capabilities and have a swing role, with a ground attack facility. It is already attracting considerable interest. I was in Farnborough yesterday, and many of the overseas visitors at the exhibition were enormously impressed by Typhoon's capability. It is already winning competitions around the world, and I am confident that it will provide not only significant employment in the United Kingdom but a potent capability for the Royal Air Force.

David Burnside: Can the Secretary of State clear up some serious concerns and omissions in his statement, regarding the future of security in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm what will be the future battalion strength of the Royal Irish Regiment, and does it include the three home battalions necessary for backing up the police for internal security in Northern Ireland? Secondly, what is the future for RAF Aldergrove, and does it include the various forces involved in aerial surveillance for internal security in the Province. Thirdly, why are we losing the three Royal Navy coastal patrol vessels, when in the past 12 months an illegal load of imported arms came into the port of Belfast for a so-called loyalist terrorist organisation? To lose all three seems dangerous.

Geoff Hoon: I accept that the defence role in Northern Ireland must be kept under constant review. We have to work closely with the Chief Constable to ensure that our view of the security situation is up to date, but as that situation is maintained at a much improved level from years gone by, it is right to consider carefully the level of resources required. Obviously, I take account of the hon. Gentleman's observations, and we must not take risks with security in Northern Ireland, but the four battalions that I have mentioned repeatedly today have not been based in Northern Ireland for some time, so I judge it appropriate to say that they are now no longer required for duty there. If there is, as I hope there will not be, a serious deterioration in the security situation there, we will have the flexibility and the capability to take appropriate action.

Nick Brown: I welcome the recognition in the statement that warship building and maintenance require an accompanying industrial strategy from the Ministry of Defence. There was some recognition of that in the two refits commissioned for Rosyth. There is a need to do something similar for Swan Hunter on the Tyne. If my right hon. Friend cannot say now what that something similar will be, will he at least agree to meet me and the other Members representing the area so that we can discuss what can be done?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend has been a strong and determined champion of Swan Hunter and his constituents employed there, and obviously I will be delighted to meet him. He is right to say that we need a co-ordinated industrial strategy for our shipbuilding, alongside the requirements of the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. I will be delighted to discuss that with him on some suitable future occasion.

Patrick Mercer: There is no doubt that the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry have handled everything that has been thrown at them over the past few years, and they have done so admirably. The fact remains that three quarters of battalions are now heavily undermanned. Those based in Nottinghamshire—the Secretary of State's area and mine—now have a ridiculously short time to rest, retrain and see their families between operational deployments. One regiment is so undermanned in Basra that soldiers are getting less than four hours—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, some hon. Members have not been listening to what I have been saying. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his question briefly to the Secretary of State?

Patrick Mercer: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful.
	Will the Secretary of State admit that reducing the number of fighting soldiers in the Army is an act of madness created by financial strictures rather than any tactical analysis?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman and I have had some very thoughtful discussions about the problems of the modern Army as it faces the challenges of the 21st century, but he will recognise that the key challenge is how to maintain a number of concurrent operations. The real pressure has been not on infantry or on armoured units but on the logisticians, the support elements, the engineers and others who maintain the front-line forces. We propose to augment such staff in the restructuring, to allow them to have the full intervals that we have set out, so that we can maintain simultaneously a number of smaller but necessarily concurrent operations in a modern, more difficult world.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some disquiet on the Labour Benches about a reduction in the size of the Army. In my constituency, and the rest of Cumbria and north Lancashire, we have no military bases at all, so we keep our contact with the armed forces through the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, and it would be a great pity if that tradition were to go, and we would have great difficulty in recruiting from these areas if the regiment were no more.

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that it is important to maintain a footprint and identity right across the country. One of the problems, though, with the arms plot as it currently operates, and in particular for single-battalion regiments, is that they may not even be based in the traditional recruiting area from which they come, so it could well be that the regiment to which he refers is not even located in the area from which it is recruiting. I certainly anticipate a much greater identity between the recruiting area and the location in which people serve following the restructuring. That will be good for the footprint of the Army across the United Kingdom, as well as for the families of those who serve.

Andrew Robathan: This shameful statement would be recognised by Kipling's Tommy Atkins. This Government neither understand nor value the work that soldiers do on all our behalf. The Secretary of State mentioned reservists, on whom such reliance has been placed in Iraq. Where does he intend that they train? Is it the case that Cultybraggan training area has cancelled all bookings for next year? Does he intend to sell that training area, and if so, does he intend to sell any more training areas in some sort of fireside sale?

Geoff Hoon: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's tirade, but his real difficulty is that the proposals have been advocated and strongly supported by the Army Board and indeed by the chiefs of staff. For him to suggest that the Government are somehow forcing these reforms on the armed forces is frankly nonsense. Unless he can show how the chiefs of staff are somehow uncomfortable with what is proposed, he is merely substituting his own prejudices for the reality of what our modern armed forces have to do.

Joan Humble: I warmly welcome the statement on Eurofighter, but may I reinforce the concerns in Lancashire about regimental restructuring and ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that we have had four regimental restructurings in Lancashire in the past 45 years and that the message from the QLR, and the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, which also recruits in north Lancashire and in Fleetwood, is that enough is enough? They want security and stability for the future.

Geoff Hoon: I am mindful of my hon. Friend's point about the number of changes that have occurred over the years. It is certainly part of our determination to ensure that we provide a structure that is capable of lasting: it will be based on a regional organisation that will allow the distinctive identity of traditional regiments to be maintained and will mean that we do not need to change the structure every so often.
	I would be glad if my hon. Friend would do two things for me. First, if she looked at existing arrangements across the country, she would see what a patchwork it is with multi-battalion regiments in certain parts of the country and single-battalion regiments elsewhere. In the interest of consistency for our armed forces, our proposals will deliver a second factor, which I hope that she will take back to Lancashire. What we are proposing is in the interests of the men and women serving. That may not be liked by the armchair generals of the Opposition who believe that their prejudices are more important than the reality of modern life for serving men and women. That is what it is all about—improving the way of life of people in service, not of the retired generals on the other side of the House.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State has talked today about an improved security situation in Northern Ireland, but he must be aware of the continued, very real and serious security threat along the border and in other parts of Northern Ireland. Can he give the House an assurance that whatever resources are required by the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland to meet security needs will be available?

Geoff Hoon: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, although I hoped that I had already given it. We certainly remain in close consultation with the GOC and the Chief Constable and if there is a significant deterioration in the security situation, we will take appropriate action.

Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Scots, which recruits from the Edinburgh area, returned from Iraq earlier this year and is on call to go back there later this year? Does he realise that in that regiment there are men with wives and young families who have not been at home for Christmas for four years in a row? Given their potential contribution, including to UN peacekeeping in the future, surely we should not be considering disbanding any of the Scottish regiments.

Geoff Hoon: If my right hon. Friend thinks through the premise of his initial observation, he will see that the proposals are designed to ensure much greater stability and consistency in the lives of those who serve and, indeed, for their families. That is well recognised by the Army Board—[Interruption.] I hear critical cries from Opposition Members, but, frankly, they need to talk to those who serve rather than to those who are retired.

Ann Winterton: Just like me, the Secretary of State has never served in the armed services or worn the Queen's uniform. Why has he not learned three basic, simple facts? First, technology can never replace manpower. Secondly, when we have serious problem of overstretch, it cannot be solved by cutting the number of troops. Thirdly, there are benefits from our regimental system, which is about loyalty and identity. I say to the Secretary of State: hands off the Cheshire regiment, because it has the support of the whole county and will fight to head off attempts to get rid of it, as we did before. The Army Board was wrong last time, and it is wrong this time.

Geoff Hoon: I will check in Hansard, but I do not recall the hon. Lady speaking with such passion when her Government were cutting defence by 30 per cent.

Nicholas Soames: She did.

Geoff Hoon: I said that I did not recall it, but if she did, I am delighted to allow her the opportunity of making representations to her Front Benchers who are proposing to cut defence, should they be elected. If the hon. Lady is really concerned about the safety and security of the men and women in the armed forces, she will recognise that technology provides enormous protection for them. The programme that I announced yesterday—the Watchkeeper programme, which is the latest and best technology available—will provide us with intelligence and reconnaissance information well over the horizon, allowing those men who serve to be properly protected. That is what technology is about. It is not an either/or: we need both effective, well-trained people and effective modern technology.

Russell Brown: The further increase in departmental spending is to be welcomed and it has to be better than what the Conservatives would do with a standstill budget. However, my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the strong support for the King's Own Scottish Borderers. History and cap badges are but two aspects of regiments, but recruitment and retention of personnel are vital and the KOSB has an excellent record. Over the coming weeks and months, will the Secretary of State make time available in his diary, because I will be coming to lobby him—and I suspect it will be on more than one occasion?

Geoff Hoon: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his thoughtful approach to the subject. At least he is prepared to consider the arguments. Unfortunately, too many right hon. and hon. Members among the Opposition have already formed their own prejudices.

Alan Beith: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if he goes ahead with the proposal to move RAF Boulmer to Lincolnshire, he will have to find at least £15 million—probably a lot more—to replace the facilities just being completed at Boulmer, and that the revenue savings, already greatly exaggerated, will quickly be eaten away by having to meet those capital costs?

Geoff Hoon: That decision has not yet been taken, but it will have to be discussed in future.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend rightly rejected the option of buying two second-hand aircraft carriers from the Americans and is pledged to plough ahead with building the two new aircraft carriers. In view of that, is it not about time that BAE Systems stopped moaning about perceived injustices and got on with working together with Thales and the UK Government to deliver on time and on budget? It is very important for Clydeside constituencies that BAE Systems clarifies its intentions with respect to the marine division.

Geoff Hoon: I want to emphasise how co-operatively we work with BAE Systems and how pleased I am that it has agreed to the alliancing proposal that will ensure that it works closely with the Ministry of Defence and Thales in delivering those two magnificent aircraft carriers for Britain's armed forces.

Desmond Swayne: As one of the armchair majors, may I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? Does the Secretary of State agree that network enabled capability, like any other system, relies ultimately on the quality and calibre of the servicemen and women who operate it? The maintenance of morale will therefore retain its fundamental importance. What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the impact on morale of his statement today?

Geoff Hoon: I indicated to the House that we intend to update the remuneration and rewards available to those who serve so well as reservists. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his efforts. I ask him—he has spent some time working with the men and women of our armed forces—to consider the question of morale. The truth is that one of the most damaging aspects of lower morale, particularly in the Army, is the disruption caused to family life by the constant rotation that the arms plot involved. That is extremely damaging to personal morale. In my judgment, it is one of the reasons why many highly trained, expert men whom we would have liked to retain in our infantry battalions leave before they originally planned to leave—simply because of the effect on their families of moving around the country so frequently.

Mike Gapes: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Ministry of Defence has learned the lessons about equipment from Operation Telic in Iraq. Does he believe that, as a result of the statement, there will be greater or lesser urgent operational requirements in the future?

Geoff Hoon: The whole purpose of urgent operational requirements is to ensure that we have the right equipment for the particular operation being conducted. In our longer-term planning, we are trying to ensure flexibility—and flexibility is at the heart of the proposed changes—for the capabilities that we have available. Nevertheless, there will always be a requirement for some urgent operational requirements, since they are specific to the particular operation in hand.

Robert Smith: Many constituents have approached me with their concerns about what might appear in the statement today. They recognise that high technology and what happened in the initial phase of the Gulf war demonstrated some of the Secretary of State's points in the statement, but believe that the real lesson that has still not been learned relates to what happened after the initial phase and the crucial role played by troops on the ground and the infantry. Does he recognise that it is vital for the restructuring that he does not squander what we will get by reducing numbers in Northern Ireland, but maximises the impact and availability of those forces for future peacekeeping roles?

Geoff Hoon: Implicit in that entirely proper observation is the idea that technology is relevant only to the war-fighting phase, and somehow irrelevant to peacekeeping. The truth is that it is absolutely vital when one puts soldiers into a potentially hostile environment. For example, technology ensures that they can receive information and intelligence from commanding officers and that they can be evacuated by search and rescue from places of danger. The technology that we are providing—at the organisational level and to individual soldiers—will transform how they are able to conduct both the war-fighting and peacekeeping roles.

Doug Henderson: In last week's spending review, the Ministry of Defence was committed to making a contribution to the dispersal of civil servants' jobs, enthusiastically or otherwise. My right hon. Friend said today that he aims to make savings of £2.8 billion. I strongly support that and believe that it can be achieved. Will he clarify whether that figure includes an element of saving to be achieved by the dispersal of MOD activity to the regions? If not, when will he be able to make a statement on the matter?

Geoff Hoon: The figure does include the dispersal element. Indeed, I am very proud of the MOD's record in providing opportunities for people to be employed outside central London and the south-east area. It has led the way among Government Departments in that, but there will be a further dispersal of jobs across the country. We anticipate that some 3,800 jobs will be dispersed in the near future, but that will be in addition to what has already been achieved.

Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement heralds the most substantial changes to the armed forces since the end of the cold war, that that has been driven largely by technological change and that a lower share of the nation's wealth, in terms of gross domestic product, is now devoted to defence? When I was in uniform, I was told that the inevitable logic of technological change was that, in 100 years, our armed forces would consist of one aircraft, one ship and one tank. Representations have been made by hon. Members of all parties about the importance of boots on the ground. Does the Secretary of State accept that war fighting has been the easy bit in the conflicts that the Government have undertaken and that the difficult bits are the subsequent peace enforcement and nation building? Is he prepared to accept that he and his Department may have got the balance wrong? Will he be prepared to listen over the coming months?

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, I am prepared to listen. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman speaks with some knowledge and experience of these matters, as a serving soldier and as someone who in the past was involved in defence policy. He is right that it is necessary to ensure that we get the right balance between existing equipment, new equipment and numbers of people, but I do not accept the logic that he describes. A comparison between the numbers of aircraft needed to attack a target in the second world war—often with poor results but at huge risk to the airmen involved—and modern precision strike operations that may involve only one aircraft makes it possible to see the changes that have taken place.
	I always recognise that this is a question of balance and judgment. I believe that the MOD and our armed forces have the balance right and that we must continue to invest in the new technology. In that way, we can continue to deliver the war-fighting successes that have been achieved in recent times. In addition, as I said in response to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), we can ensure that our armed forces are properly protected in an increasingly difficult peacekeeping role.

David Crausby: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment recruits its full complement from its own region? It will be much more likely to do so if it continues to exist under a Lancashire cap badge.

Geoff Hoon: I accept the vital importance of the identity that is associated with traditional and historic regiments. I have answered similar questions several times already, and my hon. Friend makes his point very precisely. However, Lancashire covers a large area, and any organisation that replaces the existing single-battalion regiments in such areas will have a close regional identity.

David Laws: The plans for additional investment in military helicopters over the next 10 years will be very welcome at Westland Helicopters in my constituency, as will the Secretary of State's remark that ours is one of the most capable helicopter forces in Europe. Does he agree that, to maintain that capability, an early and positive announcement on the upgrade of the Lynx helicopter would be extremely helpful?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. We have had a meeting already to discuss the future programme for helicopters. Yesterday, I went to Farnborough to see the magnificent stand organised by AugustaWestland, at which a tremendously impressive range of capabilities was on display. It is from that impressive range that we will select the helicopters that will provide continuing and excellent support to our armed forces. The total of £3 billion is a significant sum of money and I am sure that it will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Helen Jones: Several of my hon. Friends have asked about the Queen's Lancashire regiment, so may I tell my right hon. Friend that while it recruits from within Lancashire's current county boundaries, it also recruits from the old Lancashire towns and even from parts of Manchester? Does the regiment not fulfil already, therefore, many of the objectives that he has set out, in that it is locally based and recruits locally? Does not the maintenance of an effective infantry depend on retaining those traditions and local connections, so that regiments such as the QLR can recruit?

Geoff Hoon: I broadly agree, and that is pretty much the answer that I just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), who raised the same point.

Peter Bottomley: Knowledge of the armed forces can be gained by serving in the regular forces, by doing national service—that is for the more mature of us—or by taking part in the valued armed forces parliamentary scheme.
	However people gain that knowledge, does the Secretary of State accept that we all understand that new technology has to be merged with the traditional virtues of those who serve in our armed forces?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that, although local links matter, what matters most is that we have a defence force that can also do good around the world? Does he also accept that local links are important for manufacturing and recruitment?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly agree. One of the absolutely fundamental observations made to me by successive chiefs of staff is that troops who are good at peacekeeping are also good at war fighting. If training is directed only at peacekeeping, that will be of significant detriment to the overall capability of the armed forces. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the interrelated nature of the training that is required, and to point out the industrial implications.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last but not least from this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure my right hon. Friend that history is important. The Queen's Lancashire Regiment won 19 Victoria crosses and more battle honours than any other regiment, and it has fought on every continent. However, that is no reason for its continued existence. Does he agree that that should depend on its continued ability to recruit its full strength from Lancashire, without encountering problems? Also, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Typhoon announcement, but noticed that he made no mention of the A400M.

Geoff Hoon: There is no satisfying my hon. Friend. I anticipate that, in the months ahead, I shall learn a good deal more about the history of the QLR, and I shall be delighted to do so. In the course of my attendance at the Farnborough air show yesterday, I was able to visit the Airbus stand. I was thanked profusely for the British Government's commitment to A400M. Of course, I mentioned my hon. Friend's name and said that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's commitment.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State said that the Army is to be reduced in size by 6 per cent. and that there will be four fewer battalions. However, he also said that the new structure would be based on regiments of two or more battalions. He made no reference to any regiments being merged or closed. Will he explain how he will achieve his objectives? If he has managed to square that circle, and if there are going to be regional regiments of two or more battalions, may I invite him to reverse a Tory defence cut of 1992 and reinstate the 3rd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment—the former Essex Regiment?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, the Royal Anglian Regiment is the perfect example of a successful regional organisation that is multi-battalion and that can provide a degree of stability. It is a lesson to the rest of the Army in proper organisation and recruitment. That is one of the reasons why the Army Board is so keen to establish a more consistent structure across the country. That is why the hon. Gentleman is right to assert the interests of the Royal Anglians. I regret that in the circumstances I am unlikely to be able to provide the answer to his question that I know he would like.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State talks about increased capability and agility replacing the shameful cut in numbers, but that will require the training that is required for professionalism. Will he tell the House why there are so few major exercises planned, and why Warminster, which is the heart of the infantry's professionalism, is being temporarily stripped of its demonstration battalion? Will he even answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the future of Cultybraggan training area?

Geoff Hoon: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions can be found in the observations that he and other Opposition Members have made consistently on several occasions. Our armed forces are extremely busy and engaged in real operations around the world, in difficult environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Inevitably, in such circumstances, the number of exercises is bound to fall.

Michael Moore: The King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots have proud military heritages and are woven into the fabric of the communities of south-east Scotland. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he is talking about disbanding a battalion in Scotland rather than a regiment? Will he clarify how the KOSB and the Royal Scots will fit into the new divisional structure in Scotland?

Geoff Hoon: The precise answer is that it is necessary for the Army to discuss with the battalions in Scotland and other parts of the UK how best to satisfy the need to end the arms plot and to provide the diversity and consistency that is required for the members of the armed forces and their families. Those issues will be discussed publicly by the Army in different parts of the country and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make appropriate representations on behalf of his constituents and the Army units in his area.

John Randall: I assure the Secretary of State that I will ask the many men and women who serve in the Royal Air Force in my constituency what they think about his statement today. Will he now answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put to him and confirm the survival of the RAF Regiment?

Geoff Hoon: Yes, I can confirm its survival.

Patsy Calton: I cautiously welcome the Secretary of State's statement, especially his keeping the door open—or not closing it yet—for the Nimrod MRA4 project. I understand from local press reports in the Cambridge area that Marshall Aerospace of Cambridge has won the contract for the test phase for Nimrods 1, 2 and 3. Can he tell us whether the production phase, if it goes ahead, will take place at BAE Systems in Woodford?

Geoff Hoon: Those matters are still under discussion. As I said in my statement, we still need to find an appropriate financial package to allow us to be able to deliver that capability. It is an important capability that I regard as essential to the commitments that I have made today to ensure that our armed forces have access to high-quality technology and network-enabled capabilities.

Anthony Steen: To conclude the questions, may I ask the Secretary of State about the article peddled in a major splash in The Daily Telegraph on Monday about his intention to run down and close Dartmouth royal naval college? Will he make it plain that he has no plans to do so and that it will not be downsized?

Geoff Hoon: I know nothing about the article in The Daily Telegraph other than what I saw when I opened the newspaper. There is a defence training review, but we have not reached any conclusions about its implications. As soon as we do, I will inform the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)

Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about fishing and the discarding of fish; and for connected purposes.
	Everybody knows that I am no Euro-fanatic. I have always been somewhat sceptical and am against further political integration. Nor do I see any merit in the constitution. I certainly do not suffer from Europe hysteria: I am perhaps more of a Euro-pragmatist and a Euro-realist. The Liberal Democrats would vote for the constitution and the euro, and they back a federal Europe. They do not favour referendums. That explains why the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for St. Ives (Andrew George)—I see the latter in his place—have declined to sponsor this measure.
	My concern is the criminal destruction of the environment, the horrendous devastation of fish stocks, and the impact on the ecosystem, resulting in a distortion of the balance of nature in and around our waters. What kind of policy actively encourages catching millions of fish, only to throw 50 per cent. back dead? Eating more fish is essential for a healthy diet, but we are signed up to a policy that exhorts fishermen to destroy the very fish they catch—what madness in a world where millions go hungry!
	Two thirds of Europe's main commercial fish stocks, such as cod, hake, plaice and sole, are on the verge of collapse, with undersized fish, which could have matured, being discarded and left dead to pollute the seabed. The largest fish at the top end of the food chain are caught en masse leaving smaller fish lower down multiplying at an increased rate. Such fish are swallowed by massive industrial fishing vessels to feed farmed fish, about which serious health questions have already been raised. The ecosystem has flipped over, with the fish that were formerly low down the chain now being at the top. The only living organism that is safe in the seas is plankton. I am told that the CFP has plans for them as well.
	One hundred years ago, one acre of good North sea fishing ground produced a ton of fish a week; it now produces just a tenth of that. A 90 per cent. decrease in fish stocks around our shores inevitably has major repercussions. If wildlife on the plains of Africa were savaged in the way the seabed is, there would be a worldwide outcry. Although national game reserves have been created to protect animals and we have national parks to protect the environment, similar arrangements have not been made to protect underwater life.
	If the CFP resulted in fish being caught to feed people, that would be one thing, but it does not: it is just a massive, indiscriminate destruction of underwater life. Among the victims are cetaceans such as dolphins, and it has been estimated that 10,000 dolphins and porpoises are mindlessly killed in the English channel and the Bay of Biscay each year, with ever-increasing numbers being washed up on the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, the victims of the bass trawler nets. If in an attempt to maximise beef and lamb output we stretched mile-long nets across the European countryside, there would be utter devastation: homes, trees and whole landscapes—not to mention all the living animals—would be scooped up. Why, then, do we tolerate such devastation of the ancient landscapes of the seabed? The coral reefs in the English channel will take 100,000 years to grow back, having been destroyed by trawlers hoovering the sea bed.
	Fish are not the only inhabitants of our seas, nor are dolphins. Thousands of birds die in fishermen's nets every year because they feed off live fish just below the surface. Dead fish that have been thrown overboard from fishing boats have caused a tenfold increase in scavenger birds, such as gulls. That is an extremely interesting fact.
	Subsidised tuna-fattening operations in southern Europe have caused the overfishing of one of the ocean's most prized assets, the blue fin tuna, which I note is on the menu in the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis house this week. I hope that colleagues will boycott that and go for the pork cutlet instead.
	The basic problem with the common fisheries policy is the concept of "common" responsibility. The Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which I piloted through Parliament, was designed to safeguard common land on Dartmoor from over-grazing. As no one owned the land, farmers took advantage of it; so, too, with water that is common—there is no sense of responsibility. People use it for individual gain and with no recognition that the activities of one fisherman impact on another. Again, the fact that fishermen from different nations are all involved in the plunder of the stock makes it a free for all—anything goes, any time, anywhere. The fisheries protection vessels never stand a chance.
	The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union said—I paraphrase—that the problems of fisheries management are compounded by an interaction between biological and economic factors, which leads to the failure of the free market to deliver an acceptable solution. Such problems are overcome only when fishermen are given a long-term interest in the health of fish stocks, and the ecosystem on which they depend, by being allocated some form of property rights.
	Existing tools for fisheries management, as far as Europe is concerned, are excessively reliant on total allowable catches and quotas, which have been demonstrated to be wholly ineffective. Furthermore, fisheries management in Europe has become excessively politicised, largely due to the haggling by the Council of Ministers when it renegotiates total allowable catches each year.
	As the House of Lords Committee concluded, the widely supported proposals made by the Commission to reform the CFP have been emasculated and held hostage by some member states acting quite perversely in the short term, with the interests of their fishing constituents uppermost in their mind, rather than the long-term common good—the conservation of marine resources for the whole community.
	As we go into the summer recess, the whole House should feel deeply uneasy that millions of fish will be slaughtered for no rhyme or reason, but simply due to a bureaucratic policy that has got tangled up with political expediency and European rules and regulations. The seas are a huge death trap. In this country, we are custodians of the sea bed and we should be responsible for conserving not only the fish but the ecosystem and the checks and balances that exist around our island.
	The common fisheries policy prevents national and local control; its concept is a socialism of "common" sharing and "common" responsibility, and it does not work. It never has worked and it never will. The policy must be abandoned so that we can take back control of our fishing grounds—whether to the median line or to the 200-mile limit is a matter for debate. We are net contributors to the EU and major players in the EU. After 30 years, it is quite wrong that we should remain silent and accept the environmental devastation for which all in the House must bear responsibility.
	I seek the leave of the House to bring in a Bill that will start a process of repair, regeneration and renewal.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Michael Spicer, Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. Martin Salter, Peter Bottomley, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. John Horam and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)

Mr. Steen accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about fishing and the discarding of fish; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 September, and to be printed [Bill 147].

Devolution

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move,
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Nick Raynsford: Together with the three orders already considered Upstairs, confirming the dates for referendums and the options for local government reorganisation, these orders represent the package of secondary legislation necessary to provide for the proper conduct of this autumn's regional and local referendums.
	The orders set out, first, the rules and procedures for the referendums, including the postal ballot; secondly, the amounts counting officers can receive for their fees and expenses in connection with the referendums; and, thirdly, the spending limits for those campaigning in the referendums. I shall deal with each in turn.
	The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004 details the procedures for the conduct of the referendums by all-postal ballot. During the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, which enables the referendums to be held, concerns were voiced about the level of turnout. Indeed, some hon. Members were so concerned about the legitimacy of any result that they called for a threshold to be set. However, we considered that a threshold other than a simple majority vote would be arbitrary and unfair. Why should non-voters be able to veto a yes vote by those who bother to turn out?

George Osborne: In the past, the Minister has said that he would discount a yes vote if the turnout was derisory. Will he provide the House with a definition of derisory?

Nick Raynsford: Oh dear. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework or he would know that I have frequently said both in Committee and in the House that if turnout was derisory we should not feel obliged to proceed with the outcome, if that involved setting up an elected regional assembly. I have also explained, repeatedly—most hon. Members know this by now—that to give a figure automatically sets a threshold. That threshold then automatically provides an incentive for people not to vote. There would be the most perverse and absurd consequence: rather than voting to express their point of view, people would use the device of not voting to try to frustrate something. That is a perversion of democracy and I have explained on many occasions why it is not appropriate.

George Osborne: rose—

Nick Raynsford: No, the hon. Gentleman must do his homework more thoroughly in future if he wants to be taken seriously in this place.
	Secondly, let me remind Members of what happened in Scotland in the 1970s. There was a threshold and the people of Scotland voted substantially—by a significant majority—to have a form of devolved government, but they did not vote in sufficient numbers to meet the threshold. The net result was that for almost 20 years the people of Scotland were denied the opportunity for devolution that they wanted and for which they had voted. They were denied it—they were frustrated—and the Conservatives would do well to reflect that their persistent opposition to Scottish devolution has cost them dearly in that country. The absence of Scottish Conservative representation in recent years has been a simple reflection of the response of the Scottish people to the way in which the Conservatives treated their legitimate aspirations for devolution with contempt.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to give way to him again.

John Taylor: But will the Minister give way to me?

Nick Raynsford: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he reassure me that in his proposals for postal voting he has taken careful account of what happened in Birmingham before 10 June? That was very disturbing to midlanders, such as me.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal specifically with that question later. He raises a legitimate point about concerns as to the safety of the ballot. We have given the matter careful consideration and I shall set out our response in a moment. However, I was talking about turnout and I should like to focus on that.
	I said at the time, and I am happy to repeat it, that if the turnout for the referendums were so low as to be derisory, the Government would not be bound to implement their proposals. None the less, we consider it our duty to do everything in our power to maximise public participation in the debate over the governance of our regions. That is why, last October, we announced our intention to hold the referendums by all-postal ballot, against the backdrop both of successful pilots at local government elections in 2000, 2002 and 2003 and of the Electoral Commission evaluation of the 2003 pilots, which recommended that, subject to certain safeguards, all-postal voting should become the norm for future local government elections—[Interruption.] I   understand why the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is showing such derision from a sedentary position; he indicated in the previous debate on this subject that he did not care a fig for the view of the Electoral Commission, which carried out the evaluation. It is an indication of the cavalier approach of those on the Conservative Front Bench that they show such contempt for the considered views of the Electoral Commission.
	The Electoral Commission's conclusion reflected the evidence from the pilots, which had demonstrated the ability of all-postal voting dramatically to increase turnout—sometimes more than doubling it. The announcement was made early to give electoral administrators certainty in their planning and was welcomed by the Electoral Commission.
	A month later, in November, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I launched the Government's information campaign to raise awareness of the forthcoming referendums and the issues involved. Since then, debates have been held in each of the regions focusing on the main arguments for and against regional assemblies, and we have conducted a number of hearings to give local people the opportunity to feedback their views on the powers to be contained in the draft Regional Assemblies Bill.
	As a result, individuals and groups have already begun to organise their campaigns on what they see as the key issues, with yes and no groups established in each of the regions. Their expectation is quite properly that the issue will be decided at the referendums this autumn, so it is important that the House confirms the arrangements set out in these orders. To avoid administrative and voter confusion, the provisions drafted in the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004 are broadly similar to those for June's European and local elections.
	At the European elections, the average turnout was 42.6 per cent. in the pilot regions compared with 20.2 per cent. in 1999—an increase of more than 100 per cent. In the non-pilot regions, turnout also increased, largely because the European and local government elections were held at the same time, but by only 50 per cent. compared with 1999. There is absolutely clear and incontrovertible evidence that all-postal voting substantially increased the number of people voting, and we have seen that evidence repeatedly, in 2000, 2002 and 2003. The evidence does not come simply from a single election but has been repeated, time and again, and I can quote example after example of local authorities that have conducted all-postal local elections and achieved a doubling, or near doubling, in participation rates compared with previous elections.

Edward Davey: What does the Minister have to say to the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which has been very concerned about the impact of postal voting on partially sighted and blind people? What measures will he take in the forthcoming referendums to ensure that those people have a choice of how to vote?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an absolutely valid issue, and we have made provision, to which I will refer in due course, for electoral officers to visit individuals who have difficulty in filling out all-postal voting forms for reasons of visual impairment. Provision is specifically made for that in these orders, and I am sure that he will welcome that.
	The evidence is clear that all-postal voting can substantially increase turnout. Despite that success, we recognise that media coverage of the pilots this June highlighted various concerns. The first group of concerns relates to the administration of the process, which generally worked well, albeit to a very tight timetable. Similar concerns will not apply to regional referendums, which have a much longer lead-in time and no constraints, such as are created by nomination dates for candidates, which prevented the advance printing of ballot papers.
	The second group of concerns relates to allegations of possible fraud and malpractice associated with postal voting. Many of the concerns raised at the time and subsequently in debates in the House relate to postal voting outside the all-postal pilot areas. Indeed, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the west midlands a moment ago. That was not one of the all-postal pilot areas, but concerns were expressed, as he said, about the use of postal balloting.

Bernard Jenkin: There were, of course, problems with postal voting outside the pilot areas. Does the Minister think that those problems apply to the pilot areas? Anyone looking at this dispassionately would think that the problems apply to postal voting, whether voluntary or compulsory, full stop, and that they must be addressed before we go down the route of all-postal voting.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, as he looks into the subject, will establish that problems are associated with any form of balloting. Electoral administrators will advise that difficulties are associated with all types of voting, so it is necessary to have in place proper safeguards and measures to guard against possible abuse to the greatest extent possible. That is essential—it is our commitment—but the fact that, this year and in previous years, allegations of problems and malpractice associated with postal voting have been made does not in itself raise specific problems in relation to all-postal pilots. [Hon. Members: "Yes, it does."] It does not; it raises an issue to do with postal voting generally, not with the intention of holding—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, of course, I will give way to him.

Bernard Jenkin: The problems with postal voting have arisen as postal voting has increased in importance in our electoral system. If we vastly increase postal voting, the scale of those problems will vastly increase. We have a well-developed body of law for voting at ballot boxes and polling stations; we do not have a well-developed body of law and practice for large-scale postal voting. That is the problem.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is simply not supported by the evidence. He should listen to the views of the returning officer for the north-west region, where probably the largest number of problems were reported. The chief executive of Manchester city council, Howard Bernstein, said that, if anything, the number of problems with fraud was probably less this year than in previous years. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's argument about scaling up the extent of all-postal voting is simply not substantiated.

Graham Stringer: I have heard my right hon. Friend and other Ministers use that quote from Sir Howard Bernstein a number of times. It is accurate, but partial—the rest of the quote goes on to say that there has been an increase in the number of cases of intimidation. That is a joint statement from the regional returning officer and Greater Manchester police. What weight does my right hon. Friend put on the fact that intimidation apparently increased in the north-west?

Nick Raynsford: Clearly, we must wait for the report from the Electoral Commission, which is carrying out an evaluation, and we will give very considerable attention to that report when it becomes available. However, my hon. Friend will be conscious of the fact that a number of the complaints were associated with actions seeking to ensure the success of individual candidates in elections where candidates were seeking office, which can attract substantial allowances, and there may be something of a financial incentive. Most commentators who consider the referendums, where no such incentive applies, would recognise that the kind of instances that he alludes to are much less likely to occur in the context of a simple referendum question, where no individual stands to gain election as a result.

Edward Davey: I agree with the Minister: the case for an all-postal ballot in a referendum is much stronger because the incentive for fraud is much less. Given that logic, is he saying therefore that the case for all-postal ballots in local elections is much weaker?

Nick Raynsford: No, what I was saying—[Laughter]—as the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, whose mirth indicates their reluctance to listen, should be aware, is that we will await the Electoral Commission's response, because it is the body charged by the House—[Interruption.] Frankly, for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, from a sedentary position, to talk about ignoring the Electoral Commission's views when he said, from the Conservative Front Bench, that that was exactly what he did shows a degree of inconsistency that I find quite astonishing—but, sadly, we are all too used to that from the Conservative party.
	In the light of that media coverage, the Electoral Commission suggested that we delay laying the referendum orders until after it had published its evaluation of the pilots in September. However, as we pointed out to the commission, if we are to hold referendums this autumn, as is widely expected, and allow an adequate campaigning period and public information in line with the commitments that we have given, Parliament needs to approve the necessary referendum orders before the summer recess. For that reason, I repeat the undertaking that I have given to Parliament
	"not to proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if"
	the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2004 pilots
	"produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1260.]

David Curry: What will be the nature of the advice given by the Electoral Commission? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect it to say, "We do not therefore believe that the Government should proceed with this", or does he expect it to propose a series of factors that the Government should evaluate to decide whether they add up to a significant barrier?

Nick Raynsford: My understanding from the Electoral Commission is that it will, in its report, specifically address the issue of the all-postal referendums proposed for this autumn and report, which it is required to do by statute, on the experience of the all-postal pilots that took place in June. It is entirely up to the commission to decide how it wishes to address the issue, but it is conscious of the significance of what it says. As I have said, if the evidence is convincing that it would be unsafe to proceed, we shall certainly react positively and be prepared not to proceed with an all-postal referendum. However, we must obviously wait to see the evidence.

Edward Davey: The Minister has been very generous in giving way. I hope that the Government have no intention of hiding behind the statement made by the Electoral Commission. I hope that he will recognise that its report is advisory, as the Government have reminded the House on many other occasions, and that the decision about whether to go ahead with a referendum lies with Ministers and not with the Electoral Commission.

Nick Raynsford: I entirely accept that; we have always accepted that. However, we take the advice of the Electoral Commission seriously and we have, on occasions, disagreed with it. When we do so, that is not because we simply state arrogantly that we do not care a fig for its views. We set out objective and fair reasons why we take a different view. There have been few such occasions. Overwhelmingly, we have gone along with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, and we intend to give proper and serious consideration to whatever it says.

David Clelland: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the matter? If the Electoral Commission finds that there are problems with postal ballots in a region, will that rule out postal ballots in all three regions or only the region that has the problem?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. As he will know, his region—the north-east region—probably has the greatest experience of all-postal balloting. Most authorities have adopted it and his authority of Gateshead has been a pioneer in showing in one of the earliest pilots the capability of doubling participation. It has sustained high levels of participation in subsequent pilots. Therefore, experience in the north-east is generally overwhelmingly positive, and I have received very few indications of anxieties from north-east authorities about potential problems. If there are concerns, it is right to address them wherever they are rather than adopting a blanket approach that would not be appropriate in the circumstances.

Dari Taylor: I seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend that he is not losing confidence in postal ballots. I am bound to remind him that we in the north-east and my constituency of Stockton, South voted in significantly greater numbers because of the use of postal ballots, even with the witness statement, which was an absolute nuisance. The Electoral Commission said that there was no cause for concern, no evidence of improper behaviour and no evidence of fraud. I seek reassurance that my right hon. Friend is not losing confidence in postal ballots as an important way of supporting our electorate.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend will have heard the remarks that I made earlier in which I made it clear that I believe that there are considerable advantages with all-postal ballots. We certainly want to maximise participation. However, we take seriously all genuine and substantial allegations of fraud or malpractice, and we want to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place to ensure that public confidence in the voting system can be maintained. That is the proper balance to maintain, and it is the position that we have adopted.

David Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which postal ballots might take place in fewer than three regions—in other words, in one or two—and that the entire ballot might be deferred in one or two or take place at a later date by traditional methods of voting? That is really the question that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) posed.

Nick Raynsford: The Government brought forward all three orders and the three separate orders that were debated Upstairs two days ago on the basis that we propose that the referendums should all be held on the same date this autumn. It is implicit in what I have said about our response to the evidence and, in particular, to the views of the Electoral Commission that if it were suggested that it were unsafe to proceed in one region but not in others, we would by the nature of our response be prepared to proceed in one region on the basis already proposed while deferring or adopting a different approach in another one. That has to be the way forward. I shall not speculate on that; the issue is purely speculative. Implicit in the approach that we have adopted is an indication of our commitment to proceed according to the timetable that we have set out and our willingness to listen carefully to the evidence brought to the House as well as that of the Electoral Commission. We shall reach a considered view in the light of that evidence.

David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman referred to deferring or using a different approach. Is it therefore conceivable that, let us say, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber will vote by postal ballot on 4 November as anticipated—I understand that it would not be possible to arrange a manual ballot by that date—but that the north-west might vote on a subsequent date but still within this Parliament?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Were one of the orders not to be passed tonight or tomorrow when the other place considers the matter, there would need to be alternative orders because it would not be possible for a simple shift in the method of voting to take place without that being approved by the House. There clearly would be a need for additional parliamentary consideration if that course of action were pursued.

Mark Field: I appreciate the Government's desire to raise turnout, and the Minister has concentrated his comments on administration and fraud, about which Conservative Members have concerns. However, he has not concentrated on—the Electoral Commission has not made great play of this—the credibility of an election or a referendum. A campaign takes place that culminates in one day with the public at large collectively making its decision. The great power of an election or a referendum depends on that. Does he not see that that notion of an election or referendum is entirely undermined if the system of postal voting is made compulsory?

Nick Raynsford: No, I do not. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's premise that there should be a formal period for campaigning. However, we have accepted as part of our democratic arrangements for decades that some people can vote either by proxy or by post. There were provisions—most spectacularly in the 1945 election, which did not help his party—for the forces to vote at a different time to other people. Arrangements can be made for voting at different points during the campaign period, and that does not undermine the validity of a ballot. The important things are for arguments to be presented and for the public to have a full opportunity to hear the arguments debated, after which they form a judgment. That is one of the reasons why we have insisted that there should a proper period throughout the referendum to allow people to hear and consider the arguments of the yes and no campaigns, which will be registered by the Electoral Commission and given access to funds to promote their points of view. It is right for that to be in place before people receive their ballot papers. People may vote at different times, but there will be a proper campaign so that they may form a judgment based on the arguments to which they are exposed.
	We are confident that problems highlighted in the media coverage of the pilots would not apply to the referendums. I have already said that there will be no candidates seeking election, so the risk of fraud prompted by self-interest on the part of candidates would be eliminated. Secondly, there would be a much longer lead-in time for the printing and dispatch of ballot papers in the referendums—six weeks instead of a week—because that need not be done over such a concentrated period to allow for the nomination date for candidates. In June, there were reports that votes could not be counted because witnessed declarations of identity were incomplete, so the Government intend, in line with the advice of the Electoral Commission, to use security statements that do not require witness signatures for this autumn's referendums. The Electoral Commission's view was that
	"the traditional form of declaration adds nothing to the security of the process but introduces significant risks".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) highlighted the fact that evidence shows that people were deterred from voting in the June pilots because they found the requirement of a witness statement complex and possibly intimidating.

Joyce Quin: I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about not continuing with witness statements in the unhelpful form that they took in June. Does he agree that the experience of authorities such as Gateshead, which had three years of successful postal ballots without the witness declaration, is in accord with the policy change that he is announcing?

Nick Raynsford: I entirely concur with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience of the matter and has watched the process over those years. As I said in response to our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, who shares the same local authority as my right hon. Friend, there is considerable evidence of successful all-postal voting in Gateshead. The evidence from this summer's pilots suggests that the witness statement might have adversely affected the turnout compared with that in previous pilots, but we will wait for the measured and considered response of the Electoral Commission before reaching a firm decision. However, we do not intend to use witness statements during the course of the referendums.

Edward Davey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that Liberal Democrats are worried by the Government's current attitude to witness statements. We have heard from his colleagues about some of the problems with them, but postal votes have traditionally had witness statements, so the Government are moving away from the way in which postal voting has operated in this country. I hope that he will give due weight to people's concerns that the danger of electoral fraud will remain until we get individual voter registration. The Government need to be careful if they really are to discard the witness statement.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have considered the matter carefully and acted in line with the Electoral Commission's advice. As I said, its view is that
	"the traditional form of declaration adds nothing to the security of the process but introduces significant risks".
	One problem is that individuals are nervous that the existence of a witness statement compromises the secrecy of the ballot—it does not, but people are fearful that it might. People who live alone face a problem because they may not find it easy to have someone available to witness their declarations at a convenient time. Those and other factors are probably some of the reasons behind the situation in June when turnout fell in some areas that had experienced high levels of participation in previous all-postal pilots.

Edward Davey: May I come back to the Minister on two points? First, the Electoral Commission favours individual elector registration as a long-term goal—I think that there is cross-party consensus on that point—but how do we insure against fraud in the meantime? Secondly, if there is misperception among the electorate that the secrecy of a ballot could be jeopardised, surely we should tackle that by proving through clearer information that that is not the case.

Nick Raynsford: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's second point first. It is absolutely right that good information should be available to everyone who votes, whatever method is used. There is evidence that the authorities that have explained the all-postal voting process most thoughtfully have achieved the highest levels of participation because they have allayed fears and ensured that people were on side. Several authorities that have done that over three years or more—Gateshead has done it for four years—have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve sustained high levels of participation. We should pay close heed to the experience of those authorities, many of which are in   the north-east, that have operated the system successfully without problems on separate occasions.

Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: After I have responded to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
	The Electoral Commission's recommendation on individual registration is important and we are giving it serious consideration. We intend to move forward on the basis of its proposals. However, that cannot be done without legislation and quite complex administration, which will not be in place before this autumn's referendums. The Electoral Commission was aware of that when it welcomed our decision to proceed with an all-postal referendum. They knew that it would not be possible to accompany that with individual registration and took its decision in the light of that evidence.

Kevan Jones: Chester-le-Street in my constituency has had postal voting for the past three years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the confusion in the European election was caused by the need for people to sign a witness statement, and turnout went down whereas in previous elections it had been going up? For example, last September we had a record turnout in a council by-election of 64 per cent. Surely the fact of the matter is that the witness statement causes more confusion.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend also speaks from considerable experience. Most hon. Members will be highly impressed with that figure. Sadly, we are not used to a 64 per cent. turnout in a council by-election. It reflects the remarkable success of all-postal voting in achieving higher turnouts.
	My hon. Friend also makes a fair and considered point about the problems associated with the witness statement. I think that I dealt with that thoroughly and I gave the undertaking that we do not intend to use witness statements. We propose instead to use security statements in the referendums, in line with the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: I want to make some progress first.
	Another difference between the pilots held in June and the referendums this autumn is that we have made provision for more assistance and delivery points of at least one per 50,000 electors, to be open on the date of the referendum and the preceding seven working days, during normal working hours, to enable those people who want to vote in person to do so.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) asked in a previous debate whether that provision would be adequate in rural areas. We have reflected on that and I am pleased to tell him that electoral administrators will be empowered to make additional arrangements in areas where they think that the 50,000 figure is inadequate, so there can be greater provision if they think that it is justified. In addition, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, there will be provision for electoral administrators to visit individuals who are not able to vote because of a disability, in particular visual impairment, and who might need assistance.

David Curry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that common-sense provision. The Craven area barely has 50,000 inhabitants, let alone 50,000 electors, and they are spread over the north Pennines, so it is an obvious difficulty. For people who are visually impaired or who have difficulty getting to a poll or filling in a ballot paper, will there be a mechanism by which they notify the returning officer of that disability or problem so that they can be visited? What will be put in place to enable them to take advantage of that facility?

Nick Raynsford: The chairman of the Electoral Commission, who is overseeing the process, and the returning officers who will be responsible within each region, must give thought to that matter. We will encourage them to publicise the availability of assistance from electoral administrators for those people who will find it difficult to vote without the presence of an administrator in their own home to help them through the process.

Gordon Prentice: On the figure of 50,000, if a returning officer decided that there should be a collection point for every 10,000 or 5,000 inhabitants, would the Government reimburse the local authority for the additional cost incurred?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a question that clearly will have to be considered by the electoral administrators. We would certainly want to make certain that there was proper provision to ensure that people were able to vote in person where they wished to do so. I do not want, at this stage, to speculate about any particular ratio of assistance and delivery points to electors because circumstances will vary enormously from one place to another.

Clive Betts: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have one or two problems with the whole idea of the referendum. However, if we proceed, we must encourage the greatest number of people to participate, so will he ensure that the instructions are in plain English so that people can understand them? That is an important point. In June, the instructions issued in Yorkshire and Humber were virtually incomprehensible and caused many people to make a complete mess of voting. In London, despite the complexity of the elections, the instructions were a lot clearer.

Nick Raynsford: I can assure my hon. Friend that the orders that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), dealt with in Committee on Monday specifically set out the referendum question, the dates and other necessary information as well as matters relating to local government reorganisation, so those issues have already been the subject of considerable scrutiny and of consideration by the Electoral Commission.
	There is no justification for the Opposition's claims that we are compelling people to vote by post. Electors would have the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials at the forthcoming referendums. The count would commence after close of poll on 4 November.

David Curry: Having just congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on doing something sensible, I now find that he has said something that he is far too intelligent to believe. He knows very well that in a normal, physical election there are polling stations in every village—in the village hall, in the school or perhaps in a caravan. Even by the wildest imagination he is not proposing that, certainly not with the doubts over who would finance it. There is no analogy between the facility that he has just announced and a normal, physical ballot, and he is far too intelligent to pretend that there is.

Nick Raynsford: I was not suggesting that there was an analogy; I was suggesting that arrangements had been put in place to ensure that those people who want to vote in person will be able to do so. The assistance and delivery points to which I referred will be open for a whole week before the close of ballot, and most people, even in rural areas, would find it possible in the course of a week to visit such a location. I have also referred to our intention to allow electoral administrators to make individual visits. There might be mobile polling stations to call in certain areas at specified times. It is our intention that everything possible should be done to encourage participation. This is all about making it easier for people to vote. We know that all-postal ballots are very welcome to many people, who find that the most convenient way to vote. We want to extend that, but we also want to ensure that there is provision for those people who would prefer to vote by other means. I have to say that we are not going to have any electronic voting in this particular election; that is not an option on this occasion. We have had pilots elsewhere and we will come back to those in future years, but not on this occasion.

Edward Davey: The Minister has been generous in giving way, particularly to me. He has given reassurances that people with visual impairment will be assisted by the electoral administrators who will visit them. How will the cost of that provision be met? That is important, and I hope that he is not leaving the question to the Electoral Commission to work out in due course. One can imagine a large number of electoral administrators having to be recruited specifically for that purpose.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with us, we will come on to the cost issues in the subsequent orders. It is our intention to reimburse reasonable costs, but they must be reasonable—we do not want unjustified expenditure. We want to take these measures in a way that gives real benefits and makes it easy for people to vote, but in the most cost-effective way.
	To enable local people to identify how their particular area has voted, each counting officer would certify for his area the number of ballot papers counted and the number of votes cast for each referendum answer. The chief counting officer would do the same for the whole of the referendum area. To ensure that there is confidence in the final result, the order makes provision for recounts, both in a particular voting area and the whole referendum area.
	The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order also seeks to establish a fair and transparent framework for regulating campaigners. The purpose of the framework is to level the playing field between different permitted participants—registered campaigners—by placing limits on their spending. Those limits are set out in the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order.
	Political parties would be subject to a sliding scale of limits, determined by their vote share at the last European elections. Parties receiving more than 30 per cent. of the vote at June's European elections would be entitled to spend up to a maximum limit of £940,000 in the north-west, £820,000 in Yorkshire and Humber and £665,000 in the north-east. The figures obviously relate to population differences between the regions. Those maximums also apply to the lead yes/ no campaigns, as appointed by the Electoral Commission. Parties receiving less than 5 per cent. of the vote would be able to spend no more than £100,000, the same limit as applies to permitted participants that are not political parties. There is a sliding scale determining maximum limits for political parties between these extremes. The framework also provides for the lead yes/no campaigns in each of the regions to receive a grant from the Electoral Commission, a free mail shot to either households or individual voters, free TV broadcasts and free use of rooms for public meetings.
	As the explanatory memorandum to the Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order makes clear, the cost of holding the referendums will be approximately £1.52 per elector on a 100 per cent. turnout. That gives a total cost of £16.6 million, which would fall with turnout.

George Osborne: What are the rules regarding expenditure by the Government during the referendum period? Clearly, the Minister has already spent money informing people, as he would put it, or trying to influence the vote, as I would put it. What are the rules during the referendum campaign? Can the Government spend any money "informing" people?

Nick Raynsford: No. The rules are spelled out clearly in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which sets the overall framework. That places an absolute prohibition on the Government spending any money at all in the 28 days prior to the close of poll. Because this is an all-postal election and the ballot papers will be sent out approximately three weeks before that, we have agreed in our discussions with the Electoral Commission that we will apply the 28-day cut-off to mean 28 days from the date at which the voting papers are likely to be sent out, so it is more likely to be 28 days plus three weeks from the final date of the poll.
	There is provision, as I said, for the Electoral Commission to provide funds for both the yes and no campaigns, and we would envisage them to be incurring expenditure supporting the arguments—yes and no—during that period of approximately a month from the end of the Government's information campaign until the point at which the ballot papers are sent out and after that, if they choose to do so. It will be up to them how they spend the money. However, the Government will play no role at all in publicity during that period, other than answering factual questions that are put to us.

George Osborne: How would the expenditure incurred by Ministers be handled? I would expect the Minister to go around trying to campaign for a yes vote. Would he be doing so as a Minister, with transport and so on paid for by the Government, or as a representative of the yes campaign in whichever region he was, with the expenditure incurred by the yes campaign?

Nick Raynsford: Individuals Ministers, as individual Members of Parliament and as advocates of a particular cause, would be free to speak on behalf of the yes or no cause, but they would not be performing a function as Ministers during that time. They would be acting as individuals, not as Ministers.

Bernard Jenkin: It is important that that should be seen to be fair. For example, if the right hon. Gentleman were to travel to the north of England during the referendum period to make a speech in favour of a regional assembly, the funding for that trip could not come out of public funds, otherwise it would not be fair, would it?

Nick Raynsford: If I visited the north-east, the north-west or any other region solely and specifically to promote a particular position—in my case, it would be the yes position on elected regional assemblies—I would pay for my travel. [Interruption.] It happened when the Conservative party was in government. In the normal course of events, one conducts official ministerial visits and one also involves oneself in political campaigning. Because of our other responsibilities, Ministers do not have the freedom to travel around the country that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) might expect. The provisions properly cover the position, and we shall observe them scrupulously.

George Osborne: The Minister said earlier that Ministers would be free, as Members of Parliament, to campaign for either a yes vote or a no vote. Is he therefore saying that Ministers can campaign for a no vote?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot imagine that any Minister in this Government wants to do that because the Government are committed to extending devolution. Our position is clear on supporting the opportunity to have elected regional assemblies, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I will strongly advocate a yes vote in our personal capacities during the campaign.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been extremely generous in giving way. I have two further questions about expenditure. First, when the 28-day period, which will be advanced by three weeks, cuts in, what obligation is there to ensure that advertisements on hoardings and buses are removed and are not left to linger? Secondly, will the Minister ask the Electoral Commission if it will consult the yes and no campaigns, so that both sides are satisfied that the information that it puts out during the campaign is impartial, which is not the feeling about the Government's campaign?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. All the information that the Government have put out and will continue to put out has been cleared through all the normal channels, including vigorous legal checks, to ensure that it complies with the obligations imposed on us to be fair and impartial. We have observed that principle and shall continue to do so.
	The process will end the Government's provision of information before the yes and no campaigns publicity campaigns begin to kick in. The Government will not issue paid advertisements when the yes and no campaigns have been approved by the Electoral Commission and are campaigning. The hon. Member for North Essex knows that in the normal course of events I cannot guarantee that no hoardings will be left over, but we intend to end all publicity and advertising well before the yes and no campaigns are launched.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that during the time in which the Government are allowed to give objective information to people about this extremely important constitutional occasion, they will use that opportunity to give a great deal of information to everyone who can vote?

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to provide that assurance. Last week, I attended a hearing in Blackpool, which is not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend, where the debate was intelligent and sensible. The no campaign fielded an expert on local government, whom I respect greatly, and the yes campaign fielded a councillor with considerable experience of a local authority. I presented the factual basis and the yes and no campaigns argued their cases, which is right and proper. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex laughs, but he would be surprised if I went into the detail of what the advocate for the no campaign said, which did not accord with the views expressed by Conservative Front Benchers—I have more respect for that particular spokesman and his expertise than I do for them. [Interruption.] I will take one more intervention, but then I must end my speech because other hon. Members want to speak.

Neil Turner: Sub-paragraph (c) of "Limits on referendum expenses by participants in the North West region" refers to
	"£100,000 in the case of an individual or body falling within"
	a certain Act. What provision is there to prevent a very rich person from setting up a number of bodies and putting the £100,000 into the fund, thus skewing the debate one way or the other?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a difficulty with the existing regulations. Having examined them carefully, we believe that there is scope for individuals to support different organisations, all of which could register separately. It will be for the Electoral Commission to decide whether, in its opinion, there is an abuse of the system in such circumstances. I trust the judgment of the commission, which is of course empowered to register participants. Without its endorsement, those participants are not entitled to spend more than £10,000.
	The orders are essential to enable referendums on elected regional assemblies to be held this autumn. I believe that they provide a proper basis for the achievement of our objectives. Those objectives are to give the people in the northern regions an opportunity to express their views either for or against elected regional assemblies, to do so on the basis of the highest possible participation, and to be well informed of the outcome. I commend the orders to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I think the whole House is extremely grateful to the Minister for the time he has given us and the number of interventions he has taken. He is an extremely nice man, and also an extremely honourable man; but sometimes, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, he must wonder what on earth the mess is that he has got himself into.
	Even if Parliament approves the orders this week, everyone will be left wondering whether the referendums in the north of England will take place at all. It is difficult to imagine how the Government could have created more of a mess for themselves. Here we are with the date of the referendums set, with the Government spending millions of pounds of public money on their own propaganda campaign, and with the yes and no campaigns up and running in three northern regions not yet recognised by the Electoral Commission or the Government, facing the fact that the referendums may never be held.
	The problem is that the Government have become obsessed with conducting the referendums by means of all-postal ballots. We must ask ourselves why. The conventional ballot box was good enough for the Scottish referendum, good enough for Wales and good enough for the London mayoralty and the London Assembly. Why does it not do for referendums on regional assemblies? Why does the Deputy Prime Minister—against all the advice of the Electoral Commission, after the chaos of the all-postal pilots in the June elections and after the collapse of public confidence in all-postal voting—still insist on all-postal referendums? He is effectively putting the whole policy at risk, because the Government may yet have to call them off.
	The real danger with the referendums is the massive opportunity for vote-harvesting. I use that phrase advisedly. Unscrupulous individuals or organisations collecting unwanted ballot papers from doorsteps, from the doormats of multiple-occupancy residences or even from people's rubbish sacks and bins could forge signatures and post the papers off, and no one would be the wiser. There is no way of checking whether the votes are genuine.
	I hear what the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) say about the self-interest of candidates not being a factor in a referendum, but reduced motive does not improve the security of a system that is fundamentally unsound.

Kevan Jones: Is it not easier to impersonate someone under the present ballot-box system than under the postal-vote system? I could turn up at the hon. Gentleman's polling station, give his name and address, receive a ballot paper and walk out. There would be no audit trail to establish that I had been there. Surely what the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense.

Bernard Jenkin: Logistically, it is much more difficult to organise large-scale impersonation in a polling station than behind a closed door with stacks of ballot papers. In order to impersonate me, another voter and another voter several times, the hon. Gentleman would have to go into separate polling stations to avoid being identified voting more than once. That is not necessary if he is voting behind a closed door using ballot papers with forged signatures. It is possible to vote hundreds and hundreds of times under the system that is being promulgated in these orders. It would not be possible to do that with the conventional ballot box.

Edward Davey: Would the hon. Gentleman be more relaxed if there were a declaration of identity, as there was in the all-postal ballot pilots? It is important for him to say that. If he can join our party in making that point, perhaps we can persuade the Government that, until we get individual elector registration, that is the way to go to prevent the fraud that he has expressed concern about.

Bernard Jenkin: A witness statement is an additional safeguard. None the less, it is unsatisfactory because it can be forged, too, and there is no way to check that. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be preferable to have a witness statement.
	I still think that it would be preferable to have conventional ballot box voting. That would be a more secure way of conducting the referendums. How could anyone check whether the signatures on the ballot packs were real or fake?

Dari Taylor: The House is well aware that evidence was produced that fraud took place in parts of the midlands. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us whether there was any evidence of similar fraud, on any scale, in the northern region.

Bernard Jenkin: If the system is unsound in the midlands, it is unsound in any other region. I will come to what the leader of Birmingham city council said in a moment, but the other place insisted on a witness statement in the postal pilots because of the need for some check on all-postal balloting. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who is longing to be the new Miss North-east in the regional assembly: it probably would reduce the turnout because it would complicate the system, but it would make it safer. We must accept that.
	That is why the Electoral Commission wanted the Government to delay these referendum orders. It is all very well to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is no longer here unfortunately, would not listen to the Electoral Commission. When it does not suit the Minister for Local and Regional Government, even though his Government set up the Electoral Commission, he does not listen to it—well, he listens to it and ignores it. That is what he has done in this case.
	It is widely known that the Electoral Commission would have preferred the Government to delay the orders until it reported on the pilots. I am sure that the Minister will not be disingenuous enough to insist that that is not true. What it wants ideally is to implement individual voter registration, so that a record of every voter's signature is held centrally on file and signatures on ballot papers can be cross-checked if there is any doubt or any need. Indeed, they could be spot cross-checked to discourage anyone from forging a signature on a ballot paper.
	In these referendums, apathy will be rife. The majority in all three regions probably do not care, or hardly know, about the Deputy Prime Minister's precious regional assembly proposals. Few people will care what happens to the ballot papers that they never asked for. Again, despite the chaos last time, live, validated ballot papers will pour out across the north of England and, from that point on, no one will know where individual ballot papers have been, who has completed them and whether any fraud has taken place. That is what the postal pilots clearly proved last month.
	The other problem is the state of electoral law. As Sir Albert Bore, Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said last month:
	"At present, in relation to postal ballot papers, the law is so general that almost anything is legal."
	That is why the Electoral Commission is pushing for an increase in the number and type of offences with regard to postal voting to protect the integrity of the ballot.
	I put it to the Minister that there is no consensus on this matter. He has the support of neither the Liberal Democrats nor the Conservative party on the question. Why are the Government galloping ahead with their own way of conducting ballots without any party consensus? This has hardly ever been done before with such a cavalier attitude. The only conclusion that one can reach is that it is being done because it is in this miserable, rotten Government's interests; they see political advantage in it. An all-postal ballot is the only hope of avoiding the humiliation of a totally derisory turnout. That is not an excuse for hijacking the voting system.
	The other advantage that the Government now have is a convenient exit strategy. I can well imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has been detailed by the Prime Minister to try to extricate the Government from the mess that the Deputy Prime Minister has made. If the Government really do face humiliation in all three regions, they can use the Electoral Commission's report as a pretext to call the whole thing off.
	Last month, the House was told that the referendums would not proceed if the Electoral Commission were to conclude that it was "unsafe" to proceed with all-postal voting. Rather like "derisory", what does "unsafe" mean? The Minister told us in the same debate that not to proceed the Electoral Commission would only have to produce
	"evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe".—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1260]
	He has also said that only
	"a suggestion that new regulations were required"
	would be enough to postpone the referendums. There is plenty of wiggle room there; we know that the commission already wants additional regulations to protect the integrity of the ballot. It will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to interpret the Electoral Commission's report however they so choose.

Nick Raynsford: I should make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is quoting my remarks in the previous debate out of context. When I talked about possible changes to regulations, I was asked about the impact on the timetable of any recommendations that the Electoral Commission might make. I tried to draw a distinction between recommendations that would involve legislation, which clearly would involve a long delay; recommendations that might involve a change in regulations, which would involve a delay; and recommendations that might involve administrative changes, which might not involve a delay if those could be done expeditiously. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that we had to take account of a range of possible circumstances. The hon. Gentleman should not imply that a suggestion that there might be a modest change to administrative procedures is a justification for not taking action. That was certainly not what I implied.

Bernard Jenkin: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it does not alter the substance of the point I am making, which concerns what the real test of "unsafe" is. In the end, it that will be a decision for Ministers; we cannot expect the Electoral Commission to make the decision about whether the referendums should go ahead, any more than we could expect Hans Blix to decide whether we should invade Iraq. It is a question for Ministers, and not something that the Minister will be able to define today. It leaves him all the room for manoeuvre that he wants.
	The real test of the word "unsafe" will be a political judgment, not a legal or technical one. If it looks likely that Labour will lose one or more of the referendums, that may well be what the Government conclude to be "unsafe". It will be the Prime Minister who makes the ultimate decision, not his hapless deputy.
	The Minister refuses to define "unsafe" and "derisory". This kind of confusion, chaos and deceit has characterised the Government's proposals for elected regional assembles from the start. I ask for one simple reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman failed to give the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Either all the referendums go ahead, or not. Does the Minister agree that there can be no conceivable excuse for cancelling one or two of the referendums? Either he will consider postal voting to be an unsafe system, or a safe one.
	How can the system be safe in some places and not in others? That is the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Do we think people behave differently in Bradford than in York? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] That is an interesting comment. All citizens in this country should be treated as equals. To cast aspersions on one part of the population but not another is a very nasty thing to do; yet that is the implication of the Government's position. Either the system is sound or it is not, and if not, none of the referendums should proceed on this basis.

Nick Raynsford: I should make it clear that there is no question of casting aspersions on any section of the community or individual area. However, the fact is that the complaints made about the problems associated with all-postal voting—or, indeed, with postal voting—tended to be concentrated in certain areas. That factor clearly has to be taken into account, and it would be quite wrong to draw general conclusions from what might be localised problems associated with particular candidates in individual elections. I drew a clear distinction between circumstances that might prove an incentive to commit fraud—in which a candidate has an incentive to get elected—and the very different circumstances that apply in a referendum. The hon. Gentleman should accept that in that regard it is possible to draw distinctions between different areas of the country without implying the kind of slur that he suggested might lie behind our position.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not accept that that should be the determining factor. I repeat: if the system is unsound, it is unsound anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that because we do not have competing candidates, no vested interests are involved in this process, but of course that is not true. Huge vested interests are involved. The reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister is on the line; the careers of the "jobs for the boys" Labour councillors who want to be members of the regional assemblies are on the line; the career of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is on the line. Lots of people have a vested interest in the outcome of the regional assemblies referendum.
	In any case, what about some of the organisations that might be involved in the yes campaign or the no campaign? I certainly do not want to have anything to do with the British National party. However, it is on the record as saying that it will apply for designation as a permitted participant. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the BNP to behave as well as any other political party behaves? I certainly do not.

David Curry: My hon. Friend has asked a question of the Minister and in order to avoid ambiguity, I want to explain to my hon. Friend my understanding of the Minister's reply to my earlier intervention. I do not understand why we are being so squeamish about saying what we believe, which is that there appear to have been problems with the conduct of the ballot in certain ethnic minority areas. That is what we are talking about; we are simply trying to avoid using that expression. As I understood it, the Minister said that it is not impossible that there could be three ballots, two ballots or one ballot, and that they could all take place through postal voting or through a combination of postal and manual voting. In the latter case, manual voting would take place at a later date than postal voting because it would not be possible to make the necessary arrangements in time, given the need first to pass the relevant legislation through this House. That is my understanding of what the Minister said.

Bernard Jenkin: If the Minister will confirm that that is so—[Interruption.] He nods, but I have to say that that was not my understanding of his response to the intervention of my right hon. Friend. The point is that, as my right hon. Friend will agree, we are faced with an extraordinary mess. There is a very high likelihood that what we are debating—and possibly approving—is what will not happen. This is a mess of the Government's own making, and one made over a remarkably short period.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the all-postal ballot is an unsound system. On what does he base that judgment, given that all-postal ballots have operated in the north-east for some three to four years without the problems that he describes?

Bernard Jenkin: My point is that if a system is unsound in one place it is unsound, full stop. If it can be defrauded in one part of the country, it can be defrauded anywhere.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: I note from what the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West says that she has absolute confidence that the BNP, for example, will not try to interfere with the system. Her faith is very touching.
	We have had an outbreak of honesty in other quarters, from the chairman of the yes for Yorkshire campaign, Lord Haskins. Just over two weeks ago, he labelled Ministers in the Departments for Education and Skills and for Transport "Stalinists" because they did not want to let go of some of their powers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who some of these Stalinists are. Lord Haskins was also reported to have said that he thinks the referendum is unwinnable. Helpfully, he later clarified his remarks, saying that he is merely concerned about the tight timetable being laid down by the Government. In other words, he thinks the Government are in a horrible mess and he thinks he is going to lose.
	That reminds us that the Labour party is hopelessly split. On Monday, it was reported that 27 north-west Labour Members, including three Ministers, have written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for the regional referendum to be scrapped. The truth is that Labour Members are queueing up to tell him to ditch the project. Just two days ago, the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) called for the Yorkshire referendum to be scrapped, and added:
	"I have no doubt that the views I have expressed are the views of the majority of Yorkshire Labour MPs."

David Clelland: We may as well be honest about these things, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, and it is also true that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) expressed reservations about the referendum. Of course there is a division of opinion in some areas of the north-west, and in Yorkshire, as we have heard today. However, let me make it crystal clear that no such divisions are apparent in the north-east, where we are only too keen to pass the orders and get on with authorising the yes and no campaigns, setting them in motion and holding the referendum.

Bernard Jenkin: If the referendum in the north-east goes ahead, we shall see how the people vote there, what the turnout is and whether people really want an elected regional assembly.

George Osborne: It is worth reminding the House that when some related orders were debated on Monday, one was carried by only nine votes to seven, and indeed would have been lost by the Government without the support of the Liberal Democrats, because of the number of Labour Members put on that Committee by the Whips who voted against the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope).

Bernard Jenkin: It is little wonder that even pro-assembly Members are running for cover when The Journal, the pro-assembly Newcastle paper, runs headlines such as "Bosses line up to urge 'no' vote". The fact is that the proposals are losing support by the day. No wonder the Prime Minister has asked his man in the ODPM to sort out an exit strategy.

Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only today in the north-west, the business leadership team, representing the top businesses in the region, is urging a yes vote?

Bernard Jenkin: May I point out that the business leadership team is a little team appointed entirely by the Deputy Prime Minister? Its members are well-known supporters of the yes campaign, but I promise hon. Members that if we took a poll of business men in the north-west, there would be no doubt about the sentiments they would express, and it is the same in the north-east and in Yorkshire.
	We still do not know what powers an elected assembly would have. Throughout the past 12 months, we have had ministerial claim and counter-claim about what the powers are to be. Why have the Government not simply published the draft Bill as they originally promised? What do they have to hide? Even staunch advocates of elected assemblies, such as the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, pressed them to publish it before the orders were debated. One can only conclude that Ministers are deliberately withholding information that would serve to inform both this debate and the public, because they fear telling the truth.
	This is the last occasion on which the House will debate these issues before the people themselves consider the question as set out on the referendum ballot paper, as contained in the orders.
	The preamble on the ballot paper, which every voter will read before voting, says that
	"the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
	That is what the Minister believes to be correct, but we have not seen the draft Bill, so we have no idea whether it is, in fact, correct. Will it contain new policies that the Deputy Prime Minister has hinted at—on learning and skills councils, police authorities and perhaps even a Barnett formula for the north-east, which was promulgated with the north-west business leadership team at a meeting in December last year? Will it contain those new powers or, as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) told my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in a letter, will it simply reflect what was set out in the White Paper? In that case, we certainly dispute the fact that the functions are mainly carried out by central Government bodies.
	I have to tell the Minister that that statement is, at the very least, a subject of political dispute and controversy. It is not undisputed fact. The Government could perhaps have settled the matter by publishing the draft Bill, but instead they have put something on the ballot paper that is obviously designed to skew the debate in their favour.

Nick Raynsford: We have always committed ourselves to publishing the draft Bill as soon as the House approves the orders, because it is important to provide information to the public. That is the purpose. If there were not going to be a referendum because the orders were not passed, there would clearly be no purpose in publishing the Bill for information. That is why we are committed to publishing the Bill as soon as the orders are passed.
	I referred a short while ago to the representative of the no campaign at my hearing in Blackpool. Robin Wendt, a very distinguished person with previous experience of local government, made it clear that he wholly agreed with our view that the powers that we proposed for regional assemblies came overwhelmingly from central Government and agencies. In other words, the view of the Opposition that powers were being taken from local government was simply wrong.

Bernard Jenkin: I have not met the gentleman concerned, so I have no way of assessing the veracity of that statement. The fact remains that there is a long list of powers in the White Paper—including powers to deal with waste, transport and housing—that are currently carried out at local government level, but will subsequently be interfered with by regional assemblies. That is not what local government wants: it is not decentralisation, but fake devolution.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the spending review the Chancellor talked about options for transport powers being devolved and that in a statement last week the Secretary of State for Transport talked about the devolution of such powers. If that were the case, would the Conservatives welcome it?

Bernard Jenkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to be suckered by what is in the White Paper. Let us consider what it actually says. Under the heading "Where we want to be", paragraph 9.4 states:
	"We will improve the current arrangements for making decisions on transport. Central to this will be giving regional and local bodies more influence".
	But what is "influence"? Influence means not having the final decision. These new organisations will be empowered with strategies, consultation and influence, but virtually no executive powers whatever. Even such executive powers as they will have, such as the appointment of directors to the regional development agencies—something that those agencies do not want—will be subject to the Minister's veto. That is not devolution; it is more centralisation.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman is right about that, it would be worrying and we will not be suckered if that is what happens. However, the Chancellor said very clearly in the spending review that the Government would publish indicative budgets for transport early next year. We will hold the Government to that, because we believe that financial power is the key to the regional assemblies having real power.

Bernard Jenkin: But we know how the Government treat local authorities. They allocate transport spending to them, but say that they cannot spend it on one thing and have to spend it on another—otherwise they will not get it. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Government will treat regional government any differently? His faith is touching, but perhaps he should talk to his Liberal colleagues in the north-west who have decided to oppose elected regional assemblies in the referendums—[Interruption.] Many of them have. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) will confirm that they are supporting the no campaign in the north-west and that campaign can expect to recruit a lot more Liberals as time goes on.

Neil Turner: My understanding is that Liberal Democrats in the north-west have not decided to support the no campaign, but to wait until the September meeting before they make up their minds. That is not unusual for Liberal Democrats, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that they support the no campaign. They do not.

Bernard Jenkin: I think that we should leave the Liberal Democrats to their private grief on that matter.
	The preamble makes a claim that cannot be substantiated, and the Government refuse to publish the Bill before we vote on these orders, which would enable us to evaluate the claim for ourselves. We have to take the matter on trust. The Government do not intend to publish the Bill until after the orders have been approved, which means it will be available tomorrow. I put it to the House that they have effectively broken the substance of the promise that they made to publish the draft Bill in good time.
	Why do Ministers consistently slink away from any proper debate on the powers that elected assemblies will have? It is because their only chance of winning any of the referendums is by hiding the truth, running their propaganda campaign at the public expense, twisting the question on the ballot paper, issuing hundreds of thousands more ballot papers than can possibly be used legitimately, and then refusing to say how they will assess the result.
	The whole process stinks of manipulation, propaganda, spin and deceit. Labour does not trust the people, as we have seen time and again. Labour does not tell the truth about hospital waiting lists, class sizes, rising crime, the real crisis in asylum or about intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
	We Conservatives do trust the people. The people of the north will see through Labour's cheap and despicable attempt to manipulate the result of these referendums. If the Government let the referendums go ahead on 4 November, the people of the north of England will show their contempt for the unwanted and wasteful talking-shop assemblies that will not create not one extra doctor, nurse or police man. That is what the people of the north really want.

Louise Ellman: I strongly support the orders, because they will enact the will of the House. The people of the northern regions should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want directly elected regional assemblies.
	The choice will be between the new assemblies and maintaining the current system and all its inequalities. A child born today in the north-west is likely to live 10 years less than one born in the south-east. Overwhelmingly, the country's deprived wards and local authorities are concentrated in the north-west, and funding for scientific research continues to be concentrated in four higher education institutions—the Oxbridge colleges, and two colleges in London.

Bernard Jenkin: We often hear about the life expectancy disparity between north and south. It is possible to find wide disparities in life expectancy between people born in leafy Surrey, say, and the worst ward in Newcastle, but the greatest disparities exist between the good and bad areas of individual regions. The average disparity in life expectancy between regions is actually quite small, so can we have truth in this matter? I have checked the figures, and I challenge the hon. Lady to produce region-wide figures that bear out her assertion, because it is not true.

Louise Ellman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am being untruthful. If he is, I ask him to withdraw the suggestion. The figure that I quoted is correct, and is borne out by numerous statistics put forward by other people. It is clear that there is a concentration of deprivation in the north-west—in terms of wards, special areas, local authorities and life expectancy, and in many other ways.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disparity in constituencies such as hers and mine was made worse by the last Tory Government?

Louise Ellman: I certainly do agree and we are attempting to change the situation in which deprivation and inequality continue. Those people who oppose the proposals—the orders that will give effect to the choice that we want to offer the people of the north, to decide whether they want to change the system—want to maintain the status quo, with all its inequalities.

George Osborne: The hon. Lady mentioned science moving from the north-west to Oxbridge and she will know that the Government took the decision to move the synchrotron from Daresbury to Oxfordshire. That was a damaging decision for the north-west, but does she really think that a regional assembly would have been able to stop a decision taken by the Minister for Science and Innovation in Whitehall to move the facility? Even if the referendum were to be won, such decisions would continue to be made by the Minister and the Cabinet.

Louise Ellman: The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one instance, although it was a serious instance that outraged the north-west and started to bring the region together. One of the consequences was the formation of the North West Science Council, with people from the academic and scientific sector working together with Members of Parliament and local authority representatives. We realised that unless we worked together, the system—of which that decision was only one example—would continue. It would have been inconceivable for that decision to have been taken for the areas represented by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. It is essential to have an organisation to represent the region as a whole, to deal with those issues that are regional—not local—and to give clout to the north-west and the other northern regions, and to argue for change and a better allocation of resources.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to a decision taken by a Minister, but it was taken after concentrated lobbying and threats from the Wellcome Trust as to what it would do if the decision were not taken in its favour. The real decision was taken by that magic inner circle—the people who know one another and who are convinced that the only centres of excellence are to be found in London and the south-east. That is one of the very strong reasons why it is so important that we have an elected regional body to speak out for the needs of the region and to work with people in our centres of excellence. By mentioning that example, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of the strongest reasons for going forward with an elected regional assembly.
	Reference has been made in the debate to the postal vote. From experience, it gives people the maximum opportunity to vote. Indeed, in the recent elections in my area, turnout was almost doubled in some areas by the postal vote. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the caveats about the postal vote in terms of any comments that the Electoral Commission might make. The hon. Member for North Essex said that he believed that people in the regions did not know about the opportunity that they will have to vote for a directly elected Assembly. If that is the case, that is all the more reason to pass the orders. The yes and no campaigns can be officially organised, with sufficient resources to argue their cases.
	I find that people in the north-west are most interested and concerned about how the region has been treated in terms of transport, jobs, planning, housing and public health. Those are all areas in which the elected regional assembly will have specific responsibilities and powers. Reference was made earlier in the debate to housing. The housing powers that would go to the elected regional assembly under the White Paper are currently exercised by quangos at a regional level, which report to a Minister. They are not powers for local authorities; they relate to the allocation of housing investment within and between local authorities and housing associations. An elected body should decide such extremely important matters. I suspect that few people in the regions know that such decision making is taking place, let alone the names of the individuals and organisations taking those decisions. It is thus essential that the powers promised in the White Paper go to the elected body.
	Jobs and skills are extremely important. Under the White Paper, regional development agencies would be accountable to the region and not solely to Ministers, as is currently the case—although of course Ministers discuss various issues with the regional chambers.
	The north-west has had a bad deal on transport. The rate of progress on the west coast main line leaves much to be desired. If we had an elected assembly, much more would have happened in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made several statements recently about devolving transport matters locally to passenger transport authorities and to regional bodies, but unless such bodies are directly elected, those powers would be devolved to quangos—to unknown people who are not accountable in the region.
	Proposals have been made about setting up transport boards, especially in regions where there are directly elected assemblies. That, too, will give power to people in the regions and to people who are elected and thus accountable.

George Osborne: From my dealings with the hon. Lady, I have no doubt about her sincerity and I know why she speaks with such strength on these issues. I ask her to consider the M6 toll road—probably one of the most important issues facing the north-west, which we both represent. Does she really think that decisions such as whether to proceed with the M6 toll road will have anything to do with a north-west regional assembly? That decision will be taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, possibly, the Cabinet. Those vital decisions for the north-west will continue to be taken in London.

Louise Ellman: Some decisions will be taken locally, some regionally and some nationally, but a directly elected body would have the clout and legitimacy to ensure that decisions such as the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned would be dealt with much more seriously and quickly. Without such a body, things would lapse and decisions would increasingly suit the south and the south-east where strength already lies, with no need for direct elections—although it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the existence of the Mayor and the London assembly have brought increased strength to London and its power to attract more and more resources. Unless there is an equivalent body in the north-west, we shall find that power and resources are increasingly sucked to London and the south-east. The north-west and the other northern regions will continue to be left behind.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right. Furthermore, if the powers of the Highways Agency were devolved to the north-west regional assembly, the assembly would have powers over trunk roads, such as those devolved to the Greater London authority. That would be especially welcomed by county councils in the north-west, as they are annoyed when investment decisions on trunk roads are made in London and by the Highways Agency, rather than by the people of the north-west. Devolution of powers for trunk roads would be a substantial improvement on the current situation.

Louise Ellman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations. Regional assemblies should be involved with such important matters.
	Another important issue in the north-west is the second Mersey crossing at Halton, which the Government are considering at present. Again, an elected north-west assembly would ensure that the arguments were put to Ministers and when they took their decisions, the whole strength of the north-west would be behind them, supported by its elected assembly.
	There is often much dissention in such debates about whether the people of the north-west or, indeed, the other northern regions want an elected regional assembly, but there is considerable evidence that they want them. Only very recently, the ICM poll carried out in the north-west showed increasingly strong support for a directly elected north-west assembly and the business leadership team—derided, unfortunately, by the hon. Member for North Essex—has come out in strong support. I found his suggestion that the business leadership team was some kind of organisation set up by the Deputy Prime Minister pretty amazing. In fact, the business leadership team, with which I have worked very closely since its inception, was set up in 1982, and I do not recall that it was set up by the then Deputy Prime Minister.
	In 1982, I was leader of Lancashire county council, and I recall bringing together people in the north-west to argue the case for an elected north-west regional body. The businesses of the north-west responded by getting together themselves and saying that they did not believe that the current system served business or the people of the north-west well. Among those businesses currently represented in the business leadership team at senior level, usually chief executive, are Pilkington, BAE Systems, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Manchester Airport, McAlpine and Littlewoods—hardly a little group set up by the Deputy Prime Minister, but an extremely powerful body. Indeed, it advocates that it is time that the north-west had a stronger voice with clout and the ability to get things done, which is supported in votes taken across the north-west at the moment by various chambers of commerce.

Joyce Quin: I strongly support the case that my hon. Friend is making with great force. Does she welcome, as I did earlier today, the statement made by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about increased devolution in rural development policy to the regions? Does she agree that that is a way to help regional development agencies and regional assemblies, if established, to work effectively?

Louise Ellman: I very much welcome the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Indeed, in doing so, she draws attention to the importance of regional assemblies not only representing interests that are regional in their essence—such as, for example, science research and transport issues that affect the whole region—but being able to consider the differing needs of various parts of the region, including those of rural as well as urban areas. All that diversity of interest can be represented by elected regional assemblies, working with local authorities—I hope that they will continue to be strengthened—and central Government, where appropriate.

George Osborne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for generously giving way to me a third time. She keeps saying that chambers of commerce support regional government. Let me read what the Wirral, Warrington and North Cheshire chamber of commerce says. It asks the Government
	"to abandon this project before it wastes a great deal of money on a level of government that few people want and even less people need."
	That is what chambers of commerce actually say about the proposal.

Louise Ellman: That quote does not represent the view of all chambers of commerce—certainly not that of those in my area. Clearly, there is continuing debate about whether people want elected regional assemblies. There is only one way to find out: to go ahead with the referendums with the easiest possible way for people to register their vote. That is why I hope that the orders will be passed. I hope that both Houses will continue to support the important issue of giving the people of the north a choice on whether they continue with the current system, which has not served them well and increasingly results in inequality.

Hilton Dawson: Given that devolution is a dynamic process, not a single event, does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that, if the people of the north-west choose not to go for an elected regional assembly and other regions, such as Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east, choose to do so, the north-west could find itself swiftly losing out in comparison not only to the south-east, but to those other northern regions?

Louise Ellman: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. Devolution has already started to happen in the United Kingdom. Scotland has its Parliament; Wales has its Assembly; and London has its assembly and a directly elected Mayor. If other parts of the United Kingdom start to gain more powers, the northern regions will increasingly lose out.
	That is why it is important that the people of the northern regions have the earliest possible opportunity—on 4 November—to vote in referendums to decide whether they want to continue with the current system that has produced inequality or whether they want to start the vital process by taking the great leap forward of having directly elected assemblies that will start to reverse the decline of many years and open up new opportunities for the people of the north.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has made a powerful and passionate speech. She has put the argument for elected regional assemblies exceedingly well by talking about the voice for the north-west, about the need to get businesses behind the economic development needed to reduce the inequalities that she mentioned and, above all, about the need to democratise the many quangos. She made a point early in her remarks with which I very much agree—we have regional government already; this is about regional democracy. That is why I find the Conservatives' position so bizarre. We hear time and time again from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that we should trust the people and let them speak. The referendums are all about that; that is the whole point.
	The last time we debated the issue, we had a change of position from those on the Conservative Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), being his usual perceptive self, noticed that shift of position and intervened on the hon. Member for North Essex and got him to accept that the Conservatives' position had changed and say:
	"I say let the people speak."—[Official Report, 30 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 317.]
	We are in an interesting position.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Edward Davey: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I hope that he will be able to answer the following point as well. This issue is rather like Iraq for the Conservatives. They are now in favour of the campaign, but they are not prepared to vote for the motion to let that campaign happen. This is about democracy and we should let people have the choice. I would have thought that those on the Conservative Front Bench would be behind all the measures that will make that happen.

Bernard Jenkin: I explained the position to the hon. Gentleman in the Tea Room before we came into the Chamber. The Government have promised the referendums and we should hold them to that promise. I am a politician who likes keeping other politicians to their promises. However, the referendums should be conducted according to a verifiable and safe electoral system. The Government are putting the process at risk by insisting on all-postal balloting instead of having the conventional ballot boxes that would provide the certainty that the referendums would actually go ahead.

Edward Davey: I think we understand the Conservatives' position, but it could change later in the debate. We seem to be clear that they would support the referendums if they did not involve all-postal ballots. I think that that is their position, but we shall wait to see whether it is clarified.
	The Liberal Democrats certainly support the referendums. We support the orders, but not without some concerns and caveats. The proposals are generally right. Indeed, we took the same position on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. We supported the principle behind it and its direction, but we voiced our concerns and the Government reacted to them constructively.
	I have three concerns with the all-postal voting aspects of the first order, but they have largely been dealt with. The first related to blind and partially sighted people, and I see that, in paragraph 29 to schedule 1, the Government are trying to listen to the views expressed by the Electoral Commission, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Select Committee and the Royal National Institute of the Blind.
	I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will be able to say a little more about how he expects the administrators of the elections to assist voters. The idea that voting administrators will knock on people's doors and say, "Can we help you?" will be an unusual exercise and an interesting initiative. We need to understand how that will work and we need to be clear that there are no dangers in the process. We also need to be clear about how people will be able to apply for such a visit. How will that be marketed and how do the Government expect the Electoral Commission and administrators in the regions to advertise the availability of that option? That will be critical to answering the concerns of the RNIB and others.
	Our second concern, which I have already raised with the Minister on an intervention, relates to whether the Government will try to hide behind Electoral Commission reports on the all-postal pilots in June.

George Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Electoral Commission that the regional referendums should not be held on the same day as another kind of election? I ask only because the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is in the Chamber and he might be interested in that.

Edward Davey: We can always make an exception if there should be a by-election, but the hon. Gentleman is right about what the Electoral Commission said. The Government found that there was no statutory power to ban by-elections, and council by-elections especially, during the relevant period, so his point does not directly relate to the order. He made his political point interestingly.
	Will the Government ensure that they will not try to subcontract out the decision on whether the referendums should go ahead? It is vital that a political decision is taken for which the Minister is accountable to the House. The Electoral Commission's judgments and research are important. We have heard that it will make a separate statement on all-postal votes and the referendums, so there will not be a review of only what happened in June. We have also heard that the statement will be brought forward and made before the House returns in September, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will have time to debate the Electoral Commission's findings on our return. Although that information is all very well, the decision is fundamentally political. The Minister might decide to go ahead, pull the plug on everything, or go ahead in one or two regions, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) inferred, but the decision will be political.
	I argue that the Minister should not pull the referendums—we want them to go ahead—but there is concern in the north-west, especially, that the Government have not taken our advice or that of many other people and made the elected regional assemblies attractive to people who live in the regions. If they are to be more attractive, more powers must be on offer. The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" timidly and limply proposed the powers to be devolved, which was why during our negotiations with the Government when the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was in the other place, we pressurised them to publish a draft powers Bill. The hon. Member for North Essex made an awful lot of that, but the Government agreed to do it due to our negotiations. We did not have draft powers Bills before the referendums in Scotland, Wales or London. We will have such a Bill for the first time—it will be a major improvement to the process—thanks to negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government.

Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: In a moment. I know that the right hon. Lady played a part in that process, if I may pre-empt her.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that devolution is a process rather than an event, and the Government have made it clear that they are open-minded about, and keen for, further devolution. We saw that in the spending review and the Secretary of State for Transport's statement last week, and I hope that we will see it when the draft powers Bill is published.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman's last words partly pre-empted what I was going to say. Recent announcements such as the transport strategy that he mentioned and the rural strategy that was introduced today represent welcome moves. Does he agree that the Government are pursuing a devolution agenda, which we hope will be reflected further in the draft powers Bill?

Edward Davey: I think that the Government are doing that, but as the hon. Member for North Essex rightly pointed out, we do not intend to be suckered. We want not only promises and words, but provisions in the draft powers Bill. That is important not only for us and the right hon. Lady, but for the people who will be given the choice. They will want to know that they are voting not for a talking shop, but for something that will be able to make a difference to their lives.

Richard Younger-Ross: Hon. Members might be worried about the Government's intentions on the draft powers. Later this afternoon we will debate the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. We had the opportunity to give the elected regional assemblies the same powers that have been given to Wales. The Government declined to go down that path, which implies that they are not as willing as other hon. Members to give powers to the regional assemblies.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right to suggest caution. We reserve our judgment on such matters, but are keen to see the colour of the Government's money when the draft powers Bill is published later this week.
	My third concern with the all-postal vote process is the security statement, which was raised earlier. It is not a matter of such concern that we will vote against the order because, as I told the Minister in other debates on the subject, a referendum does not have an individual candidate so the incentive for fraud is reduced massively. In that respect, I disagree with the hon. Member for North Essex. However, we would have preferred the Government to retain what happened in the pilots—namely, a declaration of identity in a full witness statement. I regret the backsliding on that and hope that fraud will not increase. I am hopeful that when the Electoral Commission makes its statement in early September or possibly late August it picks up that point having read the debate.
	I am concerned about the order on expenditure limits, and the Minister was frank in saying that he shares those concerns. We are not convinced that the legislation that established the framework—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, not the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003—is tight enough. There is a danger that a loophole will be exploited in the first test of the 2000 Act as it relates to referendums.
	A range of organisations could be set up, register themselves as permitted participants and, under the order, spend £100,000 each. One individual, using friends, relatives and other associates, could set up those organisations, which he would fund to get over his attitude and views. That could undermine the democratic process. An individual might try to buy a referendum. The Minister said he would leave it to the Electoral Commission to use its best judgment on that. I hear what he says if we do not have statutory powers to turn to, but it is a concern and both sides of the House are responsible for the mistake of letting a loophole remain in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will say a little more on the Government's thinking because we do not want this important democratic experiment undermined.

Richard Allan: Does hon. Friend have in mind an individual in Yorkshire who has said that he wants to spend a large amount of money on fighting regional assemblies in the election? There is a clear and present danger that such abuse will take place. It is not just theoretical.

Edward Davey: I do have an individual in mind. Let me make no bones about it: it is Paul Sykes. The United Kingdom Independence party is under the bizarre belief that the proposal for regional assemblies comes from Europe, but the Liberal Democrats have argued for them for decades, even before we went into the European Union. To be fair, many Labour Members also argued for them. The idea that regional assemblies are proposed by Europe is total nonsense.

David Curry: Paul Sykes is one of my constituents and I have a schizophrenic view of him. I disagree entirely with some of the things on which he wishes to spend his money. In other respects, for all the wrong reasons, he may turn out to do a powerful public good. Is it not a fact, however, that if the matter is left to the discretion of the Electoral Commission, it will become locked into legal proceedings? Someone who sets up an organisation that is challenged or disallowed by the Electoral Commission might decide to go to law to challenge that decision in the absence of clear legislation. That could halt the outcome of the whole procedure.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that had not occurred to me. We face the prospect of confusion and chaos for months after 4 November. That is not in the interests of the Government or others who want to see powers devolved from Whitehall, and it would play into the hands of those who want a centralised system of government in this country. [Interruption.] I give way to one who does.

Bernard Jenkin: We believe in real decentralisation to existing layers of local government; that is the alternative to this regional bureaucracy.
	The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution on the question of expenses, which of course reads across to other referendums, of even greater importance, that may take place in future. Two things need to be said. First, constraints on expenditure work in elections because candidates aspire to be respectable, responsible people and are in danger of being disqualified if we wilfully overspend. However, in referendums we are dealing with one-off organisations, and perhaps even individuals, who care not for their long-term political reputation but only for the issue, and it is difficult to imagine what sort of constraints would limit their activity if they wished to circumvent whatever rules were in place.
	Secondly, is it not much more of a concern that the Government still have the panoply of the state at their disposal throughout the referendum period? There may be scrupulous rules in place to try to control what they spend money on directly, but the real problem is the fact that the machinery of government is a superb platform from which to make a political case which will have far more influence than any individual.

Edward Davey: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I think that the Government have in many ways been scrupulously fair. They have tied themselves in knots on what they can and cannot spend, but they have failed to plug the loophole for the individual whom I mentioned or others like him. That is the concern that I am expressing. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong target in mind. I hope that when the Minister returns to the Dispatch Box, and possibly in discussions with the Electoral Commission, he can use other election law relating to money used in collaboration. Those rules say that an individual, in this case a permitted participant, cannot work with another individual, another permitted participant, to promote a cause. That may be one way to thwart abuse of that loophole. I certainly hope that the Minister can give me that assurance tonight.
	I do not want to detain the House further. I made most of my points on interventions. I simply say to the Minister that the draft powers Bill, which we expect to see on Thursday, will be the key test. My colleagues in the north-west will look at that when they decide how to vote. They are waiting to see whether the Bill provides for true devolution. The Liberal Democrats believe in devolved political decision making, and the Liberal Democrats in the north-west, as a regional party, will take the decision on the Bill. They are waiting to see the colour of the Government's money, so if Ministers want to make sure that the Liberal Democrats in the north-west are united behind the Government, they need to make sure that the Bill contains significant powers, particularly, as I have said, with respect to transport, learning and skills councils and the environmental agenda.
	More generally, with the people, the Government need to overturn the apathy that was mentioned. There is concern that out there in the regions there is a degree of apathy and a lack of knowledge about these proposals. I know from my own experience that when people are engaged with these ideas they are excited by them, and they see their value. I talked to some sixth-formers on a visit to Durham a few months ago. One could see that they were passionate about regional devolution. They did not see why their lives in the north-east should always be controlled from here in London. They wanted these powers, and more—more than the Government were offering in the White Paper.
	It may be late in the day, and it may be that the parliamentary draftsmen need to work late into the night, but if we are to win the yes vote on 4 November we need to say to people in the regions that real powers are to come down from Whitehall, and that this is the first down-payment on major devolution in our country.

Tony Lloyd: I begin by saying to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that I, too, look forward to seeing the Government's draft Bill. I will support the yes campaign in the north-west almost regardless of what the Bill says, because we know that it will be a significant move to devolve power from Westminster to our regions. But I also say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it will not be enough. Many of us guarantee that, during the referendum campaign, we will spend our time campaigning to create the groundswell for even more devolution to our regions over the months and years to come, until there is a proper constitutional settlement for regions such as the north-west.
	Across the north, among even those who are against regional devolution and among those who are passionately for it, there is a passionate belief that now is the time that we should get down to the serious business of letting the people decide. We heard an interesting speech from the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). There was little spirit left in his speech—perhaps that is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and little from the Opposition today that was serious. There was a lot of posturing and bogus point-scoring, but little of substance. Even the Tories now realise that it is the people, not the Tory party, who will decide in the referendum.
	It will certainly not be south-east based politicians on all the Front Benches who will make a decision for the people of the regions of the north, particularly the north-west. I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He has realised that the way to get through the process is to give the decision not to Whitehall or to Westminster, but to the people of our regions. That is a decision that the Conservative party has tried to block for a considerable time.

David Clelland: Is my hon. Friend as curious as I am about why those who are opposed to regional government are so opposed to the referendum? Given that they are so convinced of their case that regional government is not popular in their area, one would have thought that they would welcome the referendum to put the matter to bed once and for all.

Tony Lloyd: I would hope that that is the nature of democracy, but we all know that those who speak the language of democracy but use the procedures of this place to try to prevent the public from having the right to decide are no democrats. They do a great disservice.
	Not that many years ago, when I came into Parliament, there were still a significant number of Conservative Members of Parliament in the north-west. The Labour party in my region was berated from the Conservative Front Bench. There are disagreements among members of the north-west parliamentary Labour party, but at least there are enough of us to have agreement and disagreement. There are no longer enough Tories from the north-west even to have agreement on these issues. The Tory party in the north-west was massively distrusted because of the Thatcherite legacy, particularly because the Thatcherite Government were identified as government of the north by the south-east, and it will be many, many years before the Tory party is considered a respectable voice for the north-west.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend mentioned the parliamentary Labour party. Does he agree that the Labour party in the north-west is 100 per cent. behind a campaign for a successful yes vote, as it decided at its annual conference in February this year?

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. It was in the 1930s that the north-west regional Labour party first made the decision to support regional government, and I am not aware that it has ever changed its mind since. Within a democratic party there must be room for dissent, and our colleagues on the Government Benches will debate the issue in a proper and acceptable fashion, not using the specious tactics that have sometimes been used by Opposition parties.
	This is an important debate about the future of our region. As somebody from the region, I deeply resent the fact that the disparities between the north and the south are so enormous and have been growing during my lifetime. In particular, they grew in the period between 1979 and 1997, when we had that imposed Thatcher Government here in Westminster—a Government who were so uninterested in what took place in the north.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made the powerful and important point that the life chances of a child born in my constituency today are far less than those of somebody born in the south-east. The matter is not simply about comparing inner-city Manchester with the home counties but about how Governments have swept away any semblance of equality across this nation of ours, which is not acceptable. When Tory Members who represent constituencies in the north-west speak, I expect them to bemoan the fact that people in the region that they represent have such a rotten chance in life, and they should take some responsibility for what previous Tory Governments did.

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, some indicators show that regional disparities have grown under this Government. I am not sure whether his point about a child in his constituency having fewer life chances than someone born in the south is statistically correct. I hazard a guess that someone born in Greenwich and Woolwich or Tower Hamlets would have similar life chances to someone born in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so he should not generalise.

Tony Lloyd: It is not generalisation but reality that a child born in my constituency will die 10 years earlier than a child with the same origins as the hon. Gentleman. The simple truth is that the funding system has favoured certain parts of the country at the expense of others. There are, of course, differences within regions—that has been and always will be the case—but the average difference between the south-east and the north-west is significant and not a statistical quirk. A gulf exists between the south-east and the north-east, which does not suit the south-east because of the problems caused by the overdevelopment at the expense of the life chances and opportunities for people in the northern regions.

Graham Stringer: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions, but I agree with much of his analysis. Differences within regions do not obviate the fact that inter-regional differences exist too, and the huge differences in London do not mean that people at similar levels in society are not worse off in the north-west than elsewhere. Public expenditure is the biggest driver in putting those differences right, and, as the noble Lord Rooker said in the other place, what is wrong with the proposals on devolution is that the north-west will not get an extra penny.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend and I agree on the analysis but draw different conclusions. He is right that the disparity in spending is a fundamental driver behind the disparities in regional performance, and we must begin to address that point. He also mentioned regional disparities, which raises the question where London fits into the south-east. Unlike the northern regions, Greater London can vocalise and negotiate with central Government.
	My hon. Friend's point is important: how do we get the northern voice in the corridors of power? Over successive generations, we have failed in the north under both Labour and Conservative Governments—the disaster up at Daresbury was referred to earlier. Yesterday, the Government made the interesting announcement that Crossrail will go ahead in London and that the Metro system in Greater Manchester is up for serious discussion. If we had a devolved strategy for transport, it would be easier to make the case for Greater Manchester in the debate in the north-west. It would also be easier if a strong northern voice, speaking together and operating together, had debated the matter with central Government, where London's voice is heard. The voice from the north has been consistently ignored over the years by all kinds of Governments.
	We have the opportunity to seize control of some of the system, which is what today's debate is all about. Today's debate means that the starting pistol has gone off and that it is down to the people of the northern regions to take control of their own destinies and make their own decisions. If Conservative Members campaign against us, we will have a debate, which will occur where it matters—in the region. We must ensure that the debate takes place in the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west, and that it is dictated by the needs of those regions rather than by the posturing of the various Opposition parties.
	Electoral fraud is central to the debate about our electoral system. The system must be respected. As the Minister recognises, worrying issues arose from the recent local elections. They must be investigated, but I must tell those who use the charge of fraud as a reason for not supporting postal voting that the increased turnout is the best single guarantee that we have that the decisions are being made by the public in general, rather than by factional and sectional interest groups. It is important to convey that message.
	In fact, our system is relatively free of fraud. That was the case even in the local elections. We should root out every instance of fraud and, if the Electoral Commission says that we must look at certain issues again, we must do so. I emphasise to the Minister that there must be serious exemplary penalties for fraud: fraudsters must know that they will go to prison and that no tolerance can be shown to those who are caught and convicted. We must make clear that fraud—which is difficult to prove in the case of both the conventional system and universal postal voting—cannot be tolerated. Nevertheless, we should not confuse the issue and use fraud as an argument against increased participation.
	The referendums will be desperately important. We can have different opinions, but in the end it must be left to the people of the northern regions to decide whether this form of devolution takes place. I guarantee to the Minister that, after the draft Bill and beyond, I shall continue to say that we want more and greater powers for our regions. We need those powers.
	The debate is a continuous one, but let me say this to the Liberal Democrats. Although they respect devolution to their party in the regions, they should explain to people there in simple terms that, if they miss the opportunity to support the yes campaign,  they will betray not just the party but the people of the north.

David Curry: The only point on which I disagreed with my Front Benchers was the claim that apathy was rife. "Rife" suggests a certain enthusiasm and activity. In a sense, apathy is unrife: no one is very interested.
	I occupied the Minister's position when we were trying to extricate ourselves from the problems of local government reorganisation and the Banham review. Looking at the Labour Benches, I have a feeling that the regional agenda is rapidly getting this Government into a situation analogous to ours then. They will be very glad when they can bail themselves out of it.
	As I learned when I was trying to take an annuities Bill, which depended on calculations of life expectancy, through the House, life expectancy is overwhelmingly a function of income and education. Of course, on aggregate, certain regions will have a shorter life expectancy than others, but within the regions those in similar social circumstances are likely to have similar life expectancies.

Graham Stringer: Have not various reports, from the 1981 Black report onwards, said the opposite—that when factors such as age and class are excluded, there are still regional disparities?

David Curry: That does not contradict what I said. It depends on the social and economic composition of the regions involved. I am merely saying that people in similar categories in different regions might well have the same life expectancy.
	I feel that the Minister is trying to deliver a wholly undesirable outcome as honourably as possible. Of course, he has had a very busy week. I welcome his efforts to ensure that postal voting does not militate against convenience and equality of opportunity for people in rural areas, but we shall end up with a curious system. There will be peripatetic polling stations and, apparently, peripatetic welfare officers helping people to fill in their forms. Polling stations will open in different places. The outcome will be colourful at least. That does not alter the fact that there will be a denial of choice. Anyone who wants a postal vote can have one under the conventional manual system of voting. People have a free choice under that system. There is no analogy between that and the system that is proposed.
	The Minister will be aware that, in other countries where postal voting has become the norm, in free elections, the turnout tends to revert to what it was before. The improvement in turnout tends to be temporary. That was the experience in Australia and New Zealand.
	With low turnouts, there is always a danger of dealing with the problem by focusing on the process, whereas often the electorate are trying to tell us that we do not seem to be listening to them and that we are not responding to their needs—the substance of the politics needs to be addressed, rather than the process. Politicians may find that unwelcome. Sometimes, the messages are not congenial to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They just happen to be the truth.
	The issue of the allocation of expenditure is serious. We discovered in the European elections that the proportional system of representation allowed the expression of a far more diverse range of views than under our traditional first past the post system. In my constituency, the three conventional parties, if I may describe them like that, performed roughly as one may have expected. However, the Green party had a significant vote, the BNP had a reasonably significant vote, and UKIP had a more significant vote, although not as much as in other parts of the country, such as the south-west. In some constituencies, it led the vote.
	That means that the number of people contending for designation and the number of players in the campaign could represent a confused picture—quite a kaleidoscope. Because there is no consistency, views on this issue may cut across the normal alliances that one would expect to find on general issues. Therefore, it is possible that one could find oneself in a difficult situation where individuals or even unions seek to express themselves through a number of front organisations. The Electoral Commission would have to decide whether they could be designated. There could be a legal challenge to that designation. Curiously, the equivalent of hanging chads could arrive in our political system, with a great dislocation. I hope that the commission will be able to set out in advance some general principles or rules that it will apply, so that there can be some scrutiny to try to minimise the chances of being challenged on an ad hoc basis, according to who comes forward.
	I have great respect for the Minister's honesty but, when he argues against a threshold, he is being perverse. He is saying that we must not set a negative target. Is he saying that he is unconfident of the vote and frightened that, if we set the target of a threshold, we will all set out not to vote in order not to hit the target?
	When they decide not to vote, the British people have a powerful determination not to vote. When one canvasses, one finds people who are more resolute about not voting than some people are about voting. The best way to decide something is to vote on it. I will urge all my constituents to vote. Of course I shall tell them to vote no, because I do not want the reorganisation of local government that would be a consequence of a regional assembly, and I want to return power to traditional representative bodies. The Minister will know that yesterday I expressed again my personal belief that business rates should be returned to local government, so I am willing to take the necessary steps to make that a reality. However, we are not going to have a threshold, so there is no point in banging on about that. I will not go into the arguments for and against the assemblies because we have debated that. I am sure that we will get a chance to debate the powers. During the September session, everyone usually scrambles around to try to find something useful to do; this would be helpful.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) once again used the wonderful phrase, "take control of their destiny." If he thinks that the assemblies will give anybody a handle on their destiny, he is living in a Harry Potteresque world that is a million miles removed from reality. Some might say that the assemblies will lead to some great destiny; others say that they will lead to precisely nothing. In my view, which is well known and frequently quoted—almost entirely by Members on the other side—they are neither "nowt nor summat", to use the great Yorkshire expression. While they are neither nowt nor summat, I want nothing to do with them and I hope that we will vote no tonight.

Gordon Prentice: I welcome the opportunity to make a short speech. I am very much against the orders. There is huge disquiet on the Labour Benches among my colleagues for the three northern regions.
	The issue of turnout has been with us for a long time. The Minister will not give his definition of derisory, but my fear is that turnout in the referendums, if they go ahead, will be modest indeed. In the Scottish devolution referendum in September 1997, turnout was 60 per cent. That was followed by the referendum on Welsh devolution, where the turnout was 50 per cent. We then had a referendum on devolution to the Greater London authority, at which the turnout was 34 per cent. In the northern regions—certainly in the north-west—the turnout could be embarrassing, to be frank.
	In the process that triggered this—the famous soundings exercise—there were 10,841,000 electors in the region and 3,069 people called for referendums, representing 0.028 per cent. That persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister that there was sufficient demand in the three northern regions for referendums.
	I will speak frankly and bluntly, echoing the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. If the referendums go ahead, Labour will get a good kicking. I will tell the House why. It is a scandal that we still do not have the draft Regional Assemblies Bill. We had a debate in Committee a couple of days ago to discuss a couple of orders and we are having this debate today. There is much speculation. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said that the new assemblies would transform the north-west, but scandalously we do not have a definitive list of their powers. We are pointed to the White Paper that was published ages ago.
	If the assemblies are to be talking shops with planning and strategy responsibilities, people will not vote for them. They will not go out and vote for a body with next to no powers. We need to know precisely what the powers will be. It is not good enough for Labour Members to say that the region will be transformed, that housing will be transformed and that there will be new transport interchanges as a consequence of the regional assembles. People will say, rightly, that we have had a Labour Government here in Westminster for seven years and nothing has changed.

Andrew Miller: Nonsense.

Gordon Prentice: The Barnett formula has been mentioned. It is up to this Labour Government, if they wish, to renegotiate the Barnett formula and have equity between the regions. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wants to intervene on that point, I will happily allow him.

Neil Turner: I do.

Gordon Prentice: Indeed.

Neil Turner: You talked about the powers and about the fact that we do not have a draft Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not be referring to me. It would also help if he did not turn his back on the Chair.

Neil Turner: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend mentioned the draft legislation. Did he vote for the legislation on Scottish and Welsh devolution, before which there was no draft Bill?

Gordon Prentice: I did vote for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and we have now experienced those bodies. I have very firm views about the unity of the United Kingdom, and a Labour Government at Westminster should ensure fair allocation among the English regions. I do not want to witness the balkanisation of England that is being introduced by my own Government. I stress that we can revisit the Barnett formula and ensure that money is distributed equitably between the various parts—

Joyce Quin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gordon Prentice: I must make progress. The wind-ups start in about 10 minutes and I have a number of points to get through.
	We are told that this reorganisation will save money—the leaflets distributed to all households in the three northern regions say so—but of course, the Electoral Commission used a Government-devised financial model that excluded transitional costs and the ongoing costs of change, which will be considerable. Whenever we have embarked on local government reorganisation, it has always cost more than people predicted at the outset.
	There is another important point. If these regional assemblies are born, the Labour party will not be running them. We are introducing proportional representation, with constituency members and list members, and as sure as night follows day there will be coalition regional government—even, I suspect, in the north-east. In the light of the results of the elections on 10 June, there is no way that a single party will be running the show. The Deputy Prime Minister constantly tells us what a great first-past-the-post man he is, but yet again this Government are introducing a system that will definitely lead to coalition government.
	As a consequence, there will be a democratic deficit and we will lose hundreds of local councillors. My own local authority, Pendle borough council, will disappear and be subsumed into a "Burpendale" plus Ribble Valley body. Burnley, Pendle Rossendale and Ribble Valley combined have a population of 300,000. There is no way that people in my area will have easy access to local councillors, because their numbers will obviously reduce.
	I am also concerned about all-postal ballots. Five election petitions are outstanding and they will go through the courts in the normal way. I believe—others may not—that all-postal ballots make it more likely that the integrity of the ballot will be compromised. I have read some of the debates that took place in 1872. In that year, legislation popularly known as the "Ballot Act" introduced the secret ballot for parliamentary and municipal elections. It was hugely controversial at the time; now, we are casually throwing all that away.
	I was also disappointed to learn that there is no guarantee of funds for returning officers who want to establish polling stations in areas with modest populations. I am troubled by the thought that, in those circumstances, returning officers will not get their costs reimbursed.
	I hope that these orders will not go through today. I suspect that, if the referendums are held, the Labour party will lose them heavily. In my view, there is no demonstrable demand for regional assemblies. It is doubly unfortunate that the Government have impaled themselves on this particular hook, because they probably have no way of getting off it.

George Osborne: I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with every single sentence of what the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said—and I was looking out for something to disagree with. He spoke with great force and candour, because what he said about the consequences for the Labour party in the north-west was absolutely true: we will end up with coalition Governments in which the Liberal Democrats will no doubt hold the balance of power and decide whether it is a Tory or a Labour Administration between elections.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke the great truth that these are unwanted referendums for unwanted regional assemblies. As he said, when the soundings exercise was conducted in the north-west, just 4,000 people responded out of the 7 million who live in the region, and half of them did not want a referendum. There is a growing number of north-west Labour Members—I do not know the proportion of Back Benchers and Ministers, some of whom are not holding to the collective Cabinet line—who have come out against. They include the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Pendle, for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister, I believe—and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
	Now Labour Members in other regions are starting to speak out, including the hon. Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and to say that this is not what the Labour party membership wants. If that is the public statement of Labour Members—taking a brave position, as it is not easy to stand up and oppose one's party and one's Government—one can only imagine what the private position must be. The other great unspoken truth concerns what Ministers must be saying privately. It is an open secret that the Prime Minister is not especially keen on regional government but has decided to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to pursue his pet project. It is an open secret that the Foreign Secretary, with his  Blackburn constituency, is against regional government. It is an open secret that the Minister for Local and Regional Government himself was not a great enthusiast but decided to go along with it. He will probably get up and deny that, but it is true.
	The great problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister has succeeded in getting this on the agenda—the orders are a measure of his political success in getting this on the Government's programme, although I agree with everything that has been said about there now being various let-out clauses—but unfortunately he has not been able to match that political success with success in Whitehall in getting any powers for the proposed assemblies.
	Again, it is an open secret that there has been a Cabinet battle with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills over learning and skills. Guess what? The Education Secretary has won. It is an open secret that there has been a battle with the Home Secretary over policing powers. Again, the Deputy Prime Minister lost. Lord Haskins, the chairman of the Yorkshire yes campaign, said that "Stalinist" Ministers were stopping the powers being handed over to regional assemblies.
	I can see the disappointment of people such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who takes an entirely principled position in favour of regional government. She must be deeply frustrated that the Deputy Prime Minister has not been successful in seeking many of the powers that she wants to be devolved to the regions.

Louise Ellman: In fact, I am deeply delighted that after so many years of arguing the case for directly elected regional assemblies, it is the Deputy Prime Minister who has succeeded in enabling the Government to introduce a referendum so that the people can decide.

George Osborne: For a start, they are not directly elected—some will be elected by proportional representation, as the hon. Member for Pendle said. The problem for the Deputy Prime Minister and the various yes campaigns is that the Government have not given people anything worth voting yes for. People will face a simple choice: do they vote in favour of an expensive talking shop that will have the power to produce reports and to consult and be consulted, but no real powers over important decisions affecting the future of the north-west? Such a talking shop will, on the Government's own estimates, cost £25 million to set up and £25 million a year to run—just in the north-west.

Bernard Jenkin: And only in the first year.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point in reminding us that that is only for the first year. None of that will produce what the people of the north-west want—more investment in schools, hospitals, the police, roads and so forth. None of that £50 million in the first year will be spent on those things. The costs will be borne by people when they pay their council tax bills.
	There is also no real democracy. In Cheshire, there are likely to be two assembly members, each representing 300,000 people—the size of a US Congressman's district. That is not democracy or closeness to the people. [Interruption.] What is being replaced is a system of district councils with much smaller constituencies. Powers will be taken from local government and district or county councils will be abolished to create a new and expensive re-organisation, which is not democratic.
	The regional assembly will do nothing to strengthen identity in the north-west. There is a belief in some quarters that by passing these motions, issuing flags and all that sort of thing, a north-west identity will be created. In practice, such an identity does not exist. People are Mancunians or Liverpudlians, or they come from Cheshire, Lancashire or Cumbria. By the way, Cumbria is not even clear whether it should be in the north-west or the north-east. Identity is not really being created and I believe that it is deeply dangerous to create political institutions where no natural identity exists.

Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the MORI poll showed people's very strong identification with the north-west region, and it need not be a substitute for other identifications with localities?

George Osborne: We are replacing Cheshire or Lancashire identities or local government identities built on established relationships that have existed for a very long time with an entirely artificial north-west identity. It is a huge region. If someone gets in a car at the Scottish border and drives to London, more than half their time would be spent in the north-west region. As the hon. Member for Pendle says, the Government are riding for a kicking—if that is the right way to put it.
	I speak as vice-chairman of the no campaign—a position that I share with a Labour MP, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). Our campaign has involved many Labour and Liberal Democrat party members. We are the only broadly based coalition in the north-west—the yes campaign is not a cross-party coalition in any sense of the term—we have the arguments on our side and we represent the views of people rather than regional quangos and organisations, so I think that, when the referendum comes, we will win it.

Dari Taylor: I support the orders and I shall campaign with the majority of, if not all, my colleagues in the north-east to support a yes vote in the referendum for a north-east regional assembly.
	It is inevitable that many of us speak from a historical perspective. I grew up as a young woman with a young family in the north-east in the 80s. That period more than anything else inspired me to believe that if we cannot trust in our own, we most certainly cannot trust a Westminster Government—especially a Westminster Tory Government. I say that intentionally. I was part of a group in Sunderland that watched ferry boats being built that could not be sold. We had to take them to bits, even though they were there on the Wear, because the Tory Government said that we were outside the regulations.
	I saw a Tyneside naval shipyard of considerable value—probably the best in the country—being told, "Sorry, but you are not competent to build naval ships; we are going to take them across to Barrow". They took our work force with them.
	Tyneside's Kvaerner shipyard was closed. Shipbuilding and repair went down the pan, thanks to the vindictive regional policy of the Tory Government. I believe that a regional government would never have allowed that to happen. It would have secured the yards, and ensured that they worked well, as they do today.
	I understand that I am upsetting Opposition Members, but I remind the House that the Teesside regional development corporation emptied factories and built warehouses in their place. It then had the audacity to decide to place a leisure facility in one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency, even though no one wanted it or could afford it. In the end, we made sure that it was not built, but that is an example of what Conservative Westminster Governments think about the north-east.
	It is possible that a Labour Government would have done as badly, but I do not believe that. Even so, I do not wish to have to trust a Westminster Tory Government in future. It is important that local people are able to take robust, focused and principled decisions, because they know best what is needed.
	Over 16 years—not 18 years—of a Westminster Tory Government, and after £17 billion had been invested in research and development, product diversity and the local infrastructure, selective regional assistance disappeared from the north-east, to the benefit of the south-east. After that experience, I have every reason to trust a regional government. I never want a Westminster Tory Government to have that influence on my region again. We had a level of unemployment that was second to none, yet we lost manufacturing jobs at an exponential rate.
	Our history is bitter, and we will never forget it. We will never trust a Westminster Tory Government again—ever. There is only one Tory Member of Parliament in the northern region. If we had worked a little harder in 1997, it is probable that we would have won that seat as well.
	The agenda justifying regional assemblies is not merely negative. Although it is a bitter experience when one sees communities being destroyed before one's very eyes, I believe that there are positive reasons to support the orders. A regional assembly will allow us to develop transport and to spend money on the arts and housing. We will do all that, and those powers will be very valuable for us.
	I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government that, of course, we want to take responsibility for the Learning and Skills Council as well. We want regional assemblies to have more powers, but they must be accountable and visible, so that people in our regions can say what they want and do not want. I make it clear to him that we will want more powers, not fewer.
	I shall spend the two minutes that I have left discussing the electoral process, about which there has been much debate this afternoon. Considerable concern has been expressed about electoral fraud, and I respect what hon. Members have said. Of course, it is very important that our electoral system does not allow fraudulent activity.
	So far, in the northern region, there has been a little trouble in Newcastle and Gateshead, although there have been few, if any, problems in Stockton and Middlesbrough. Even so, the Electoral Commission has never stated that it considered our voting activity in any of the pilot postal ballots to be a cause for concern. There has been no evidence of improper behaviour or fraud.
	Moreover, the participation rate in the pilots was up significantly—staggeringly so. If I were to say anything about fraud in the recent European elections, I would say that it was most evident in the fact that 19,000 voters lost their vote because they put their witness statement in the wrong envelope. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that fact on board—we want no more witness statements.
	It is my hope that the orders will be approved tonight, and that we have an effective, robust and good campaign for a regional assembly. We have talked today about the values and strengths of our different regions. I have no doubt that after we win the votes tonight—and after the referendums take place in November—we will see for the first time the start of open governance being enjoyed by people from the region, who will deliver the best policy for the people of the region. It is the start of the devolution of real power to the north-east, and I welcome that. I shall support the orders.

John Hayes: I am delighted to wind up the debate. I shall be brief, because I want to give the Minister the maximum time to answer the many points that have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, it is remarkable that the Government should have jeopardised the credibility of their albeit incredible policy through their near obsession with postal ballots. I shall deal with that issue at some length, but I shall first say a word about regionalism in general.
	The truth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, that regionalism will not deliver for localities. It is local government, rooted in communities, time-honoured and with the respect of communities, that will deliver for local people. Those of us with histories in local government, and who believe in local democracy, also believe in empowering local councils—made up of locally elected people—to take decisions on behalf of the communities. We do not believe in ceding power from them to some remote anonymous region, with which they have little connection and less affinity.
	Does anyone in this Chamber really believe that people in my constituency in Lincolnshire would owe any loyalty, feel any affinity or offer any support to a regional government that would inevitably be centred on Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, where the people and the money are? The considerations of rural Lincolnshire would be far from the minds of those elected to that regional body. That local case is replicated across the whole of this kingdom. Members on both sides of the Chamber know that, which is why Members from all parties have criticised the Government's regional agenda. The Government know that their regional policy lacks popular support, which is why they are prevaricating and hesitating on the referendums.
	The postal ballots add further chaos to what would anyway be a faulty process because of the lack of support for regional government. Three points were made in the debate that I wish to amplify. First, democratic elections are not just about turnout. Their legitimacy is founded on the integrity of the ballot and the electorate's perception of its fairness and honesty. Voting in person, on a particular day and in the locality in which one resides, combines convenience and openness. Casting a vote in a sealed ballot box inspires faith in the system because it delivers fair, honest and free elections.
	Turnout is important, but not at all costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, blaming declining turnout on the process ignores the fact that elections are about people, policies, ideas—hearts and souls. It is for people in this Chamber, who were democratically elected, and others who aspire to be so to increase turnout by the way they behave, by advocacy and by example. Simply tinkering with the process will be no guarantee of that.
	The second point, which was made the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and others—indeed, the Minister referred to it earlier—is that all-postal ballots disadvantage particular groups disproportionately. We heard something about people who are partially sighted, but what about people who live alone, who have literacy problems or who, for one reason or another, find it difficult to have a vote witnessed? The Minister's response is, "Ah well, we will get rid of witnessing. We will get rid of one of the safeguards of the fairness of the system in order to increase turnout." The Minister will abandon witnessing because of the very real points that have been made in this debate, and which I have highlighted.
	The Minister knows that many people want to continue to vote in person as they have done in the past. I offer the House two examples from my locality. First, a young person, who had just come of age and wanted to vote for the first time, said they felt deeply frustrated that they were unable to go to the polling station and put their voting paper into the ballot box, as their parents and forefathers had done before them. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is correct. We set aside that right at our peril; it was hard earned and is being treated in a cavalier and careless fashion, as he said. Secondly, an elderly lady told me that she had voted in every election that she could and felt angry that she was not able to cast her vote in person. The idea that mobile voting stations can be set up conveniently for people in remote, far-flung areas is nonsense and the Minister knows it.
	My third point is that participation is about active involvement. The Minister knows that there is an aesthetic to democratic elections that should be neither disregarded nor derided—campaigning, the drama of election day, the opening of the ballot box and the count in front of people who have participated in the process. The election is seen to be fair, transparent and open. The balkanisation of Britain that would arise from regional government—in the words of the hon. Member for Pendle—would be exacerbated by a system for electing regional authorities in which local people felt they had no faith.
	We have received no assurances about the cost to local government. We have been given no persuasive guarantees about the countering of fraud and impropriety. There has been no draft regional Bill, because there is no popular will for regions and no convincing case for all-postal ballots. There is no good reason to support the orders and I urge the House to vote against them.

Nick Raynsford: The debate has been wide ranging, with some rather curious contributions as well as some valuable contributions and perceptive comments.
	The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was remorselessly negative in his tone. He revealed the position of the Conservative Opposition, who remain utterly hostile to devolution. The tragedy for the Conservative party, which still does not realise why it has been rejected time and again by the electorate, most recently last week in the by-elections, is that it still hankers—[Interruption.] The Conservatives were in third place, rejected in seats where they had previously come second. They have no future and no prospects—as the public recognise—because they are locked in the past and do not realise that the world has moved on.
	The hon. Member for North Essex made the preposterous claim that the Conservative party trusts the people. The Conservatives' record shows just how ludicrous that claim is. They did not trust the people of Scotland. They did not want the people of Scotland to have devolution, and agreed only after the people of Scotland had voted decisively for it that it was probably a good idea.
	The Conservatives did not want the people of Wales to have a referendum and voted against giving them a choice. Again, after the event, they had to relent and change their mind about that, too. In London, not only did the Conservatives not want to give people the opportunity of a referendum, they even took democratic government away from London when they were in power—without a referendum, giving people no say at all and showing no sympathy with them. It is preposterous to claim that they are in favour of trusting the people.
	We gave people the opportunity and they voted in Scotland, Wales and London. We are giving people in the English regions the same option. It is absurd to claim that what is good enough for Scotland, Wales and London is not acceptable for the English regions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made a passionate speech in support of regional devolution. I shall not go over the valid points she made, but will simply reinforce her message that a number of decisions that have gone against the interests of the north-west might have been different had there been a powerful voice speaking for the region. Many, many people who care about devolution recognise the importance of that.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton supports the Government position in principle, and we are grateful to him for that. He voiced three caveats. First, he mentioned people who are visually impaired, and he accepts that we are making provision to deal with that issue. Secondly, he wanted us to not give the decision to the Electoral Commission, while listening to its views, and that is exactly our view. We will listen carefully to the Electoral Commission's views, but it is ultimately a decision for Ministers to take. I hope that he accepts that. He also expressed support for the idea of witness statements, but we believe that such statements can reduce participation. There is quite a lot of evidence that the requirement to make those statements deterred people from voting in June. Although we are very clear that there must be safeguards for the proper conduct of all-postal ballots, we accept the Electoral Commission's evidence that witness statements are helpful.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about people who could get assistance at home. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who made the Opposition's winding-up speech, has clearly not read the orders or taken any care to do his homework. People who are illiterate will also be eligible for assistance in the same way as people who suffer visual impairment. There will be scope for electoral officers to visit them to assist them in filling out their ballots papers, and I should have thought that the Conservative spokesman welcomed any such measure that helps to encourage participation. His position was remorselessly negative, against a form of voting that has hugely increased participation. He is fundamentally anti-democratic in arguing against giving more people an opportunity to vote.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked about costs—an issue also raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—and suggested that the provision of either additional voting points or visits by electoral officers might increase the costs. Obviously, we will give the returning officers in each region a figure to work with for the costs, but there is provision for exceptional claims where good reasons are given for exceeding those figures. We will consider such claims if they are made. As I said earlier, we expect returning officers to operate in the most cost-effective way and to minimise costs, but provision is made for those circumstances.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) raised the issue of election fraud and said that, although concerns arise from the local elections, he believes that the increase in turnout is a proper safeguard against a small number of people exercising disproportionate influence in low-turnout elections—a very valid point indeed. That is one of the strong reasons to make all-postal provision.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon welcomed the steps that we are taking to extend options for people to vote, but he argued that, on international evidence, increases from postal voting are likely to be short lived. The evidence so far is that improved turnouts in those local authorities that have held all-postal ballots have been sustained, but we need to continue to look at that issue. Our objective is to increase turnout.
	I am afraid that I do not have the opportunity to cover the many other points that have been made.

George Osborne: What about the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)?

Nick Raynsford: Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made a series of allegations that are simply unsubstantiated; there is no evidence for them at all. We have heard speech after speech from hon. Members from the north-east who have made it perfectly clear that they have the greatest experience of all-postal voting and that it has been conducted without problem. He should listen to them, rather than trying to scaremonger in that the way that he did.
	We have had a good debate. The orders are necessary to conduct regional referendums and to give people the opportunity to have a say on devolution—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 July].
	The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 140.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

REGIONAL ASSEMBLY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS (COUNTING OFFICERS' CHARGES) ORDER 2004

Resolved,
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

REGIONAL ASSEMBLY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS (EXPENSES LIMITS FOR PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS) ORDER 2004

Resolved,
	That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Expenses Limits for Permitted Participants) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Fire and Rescue Services Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26th January 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Paul Clark.]
	The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 132.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments No. 10. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 13.

Phil Hope: Before I come to the amendments, the House will be aware of yesterday's tragic events, which resulted in the death of two London firefighters, Bill Faust and Adam Meere, who were both from Whitechapel fire station. In paying tribute to them today, the Prime Minister recognised the debt that we owe firefighters and the risks that they run to protect people at home and at work. I echo those sentiments and express my personal sadness at those tragic events. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the families, friends and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere, to whom I extend my heartfelt sympathy.

Philip Hammond: May I associate everyone on this side of the House with the Minister's remarks and the message of sympathy that he sent to the bereaved families and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere? No one in this House needs reminding of the risks that firefighters take day in, day out in their duty to protect the public, and no one needs reminding of the vital service that our fire and rescue services deliver to the community.

Phil Hope: I shall deal first with Lords amendment No. 1, which was tabled in response to arguments put forward by Members of both Houses. As originally drafted, clause 2 generated a good deal of concern. It was seen—we remember the debates in Committee—as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities, whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the matter of holding an inquiry to the Secretary of State's discretion, some also felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.
	We have not, of course, always accepted those interpretations, and we made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which an elected regional assembly is supported in a referendum. Assurances have been given in both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original power in clause 2(2)(b) involve urgent public safety—in particular, if authorities fail to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.
	In the light of the Opposition's continued attempts to present that power as a licence to regionalise by stealth, however, we decided to make our intentions clear in the Bill. Hon. Members may recall that we responded to an Opposition amendment in Standing Committee by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances—for example, if the authorities themselves suggest the scheme or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay. In our view, clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 also respond to arguments put forward in both Houses. There has been considerable debate about whether local authorities, as well as fire and rescue authorities, should be included in the list of those consulted on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes. To allay the concerns expressed, we have stated and restated our aim to allow for the widest possible involvement of all affected stakeholders, including, of course, local authorities. We did not wish, however, to list in the legislation every category of organisation that should be consulted on a scheme, on the basis that such a list could never be exhaustive.
	That said, we accept the argument that local authorities are in a unique position and that the Bill should reflect that. Local authorities are the democratically elected bodies representing the people of the areas involved in any proposed combination scheme, and they are also, of course, the bodies from which the existing fire and rescue authorities are themselves constituted. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 therefore add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes, where all or part of their area forms part of the area which would be, or is, covered by the scheme. I hope that hon. Members recognise that that demonstrates our commitment to an inclusive approach and the Bill's non-partisan nature.
	Lords amendment No. 13 is consequential and simply adds a new clause in order to define the term "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill—specifically, the amendments relating to consultation.

Philip Hammond: I am sorry the Minister feels that he must refer to the Opposition parties' attempt to paint this as some sort of covert regionalisation. Perhaps during the next few minutes we shall discover just how far the Government have backed away from that covert regionalisation—or not, as the case may be.
	As the Minister said, clause 2(2)(a) of the original Bill allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority where that was
	"in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
	I do not think anyone has ever argued that the Secretary of State should not have that power. The original Bill, however, went on to create a second ground, quite independent of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would have allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply on the ground that the area he proposed to be the area of the combined fire and rescue authority was that of a regional development agency—in other words, one of the Government's nine English regions.
	The Government have made no secret of their proposal, in the event of elected regional assemblies being established in any of the English regions—perhaps I should say "the increasingly unlikely event"—to create a regional fire and rescue service covering an entire region. Be it the north-west region with its 6 million population, stretching from the Scottish border to Crewe, or the rather smaller north-east region with its population of 3 million, the Government in their wisdom have decided that it would be appropriate to have a single fire and rescue authority there.
	Many Conservative Members, as well as Liberal Democrat Members—not noted for their hostility to the Government's broader regional agenda—and indeed Labour Members, have expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of that proposal. We could argue until late into the night about whether regions are appropriate for other purposes, but they were clearly not designed for the purpose of operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services. I am sure that others will cite instances in which regionally organised fire and rescue services might not be the best idea.
	I think there was a broad feeling that if the Secretary of State wanted to proceed with combined fire and rescue authorities based on the nine English regions—or the eight outside London—he should justify that by demonstrating, as he would in the case of any combined fire authority whose boundaries were not coterminous with an RDA region, that it was in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. He should not be able to get around that test.
	When we introduced amendments to that effect in the Commons, the Government rejected them. They were introduced again by my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, and again were not accepted. A little later the Government presented their own proposal to amend clause 2, broadening the definition of economy, efficiency and effectiveness to include public safety. That was curious, as we had been told in Committee that the term "public safety" was not required because "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" embraced the concept of enhancing public safety. The Government obviously decided that they had been ill-advised in that regard. They also eliminated clause 2(2)(b) altogether. Under the current Bill, the Secretary of State no longer has powers to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply because it is coterminous with an English regional boundary. That does not mean that he could not create such a combined fire authority. He would have to demonstrate merely that it was in the interests of the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the service and in the interests of public safety to do so.
	We have no problem with that. If the optimum structure of fire and rescue services to deliver the best service to the community happens to be coterminous with an RDA region—I would be very surprised but if it happens to be thus—so be it. That must be the sole criterion against which these things are measured.
	Since I do not imagine that the Government have abandoned their plan to create regional fire and rescue authorities, should elected regional assemblies be created, regardless of whether they are in the interests of the service in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and regardless of whether they are in the interests of greater public safety, we now need to understand how the Government will create such fire and rescue authorities. The Minister did not utter a word about that, presumably because the power to do so, overriding the criteria in this Bill, will be provided in the, shall we say, elusive draft regional assemblies powers Bill.

Phil Hope: Patience.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says, "Patience." I do not know how long Labour Members are expecting to stay here as we approach the summer recess, but I am getting decreasingly optimistic about seeing the draft powers Bill before I jump on my aeroplane to go on my summer holidays. I understand that the other place will consider the orders that we considered this afternoon tomorrow. Presumably, that makes the earliest time that the Government will be prepared to publish the draft Bill Friday—

Phil Hope: Tomorrow.

Philip Hammond: We have an announcement that the draft powers Bill will be published tomorrow. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell the House, because it is clearly germane to understanding these amendments, whether the draft Bill will contain the power that Ministers will, I think, need if they are to go ahead with combined regional fire authorities in any regions that opt, in the referendums in November, to have elected regional assemblies. Then he could explain why it is appropriate to override the test that a Government amendment has now clearly written into this Bill in clause 2 and to provide for delivery of combined fire authorities in regions that do not have to satisfy the tests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety.
	We had these debates when the Bill was considered in Committee and on Report, and they took place again in the other place. While a casual glance at the revised Bill may suggest that the Government made a major concession, I suspect that we will hear that the powers to which we object to create regional combined authorities without passing the hurdles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety will still exist but in a different form.
	I welcome amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and consequential amendment No. 13. We had debates about the level of consultation that should take place. It is clearly right that the underlying local authorities as well as the relevant fire and rescue authorities should be consulted. Why do we always have to allow the other place to get the credit for introducing eminently sensible small amendments? Why cannot we agree them in Committee in this place, instead of Ministers exercising a predictable stubbornness throughout the process, allowing the other place to get the credit for improving our legislation? I await with interest what the Minister has to say to clarify the position regarding amendment No. 1.

David Drew: I welcome the additional safeguards, which will at least give us an opportunity to debate the appropriate arrangements for any new body to oversee the fire and rescue services for my area in Gloucestershire, as well as further afield in the south-west. We have rehearsed the implications for Gloucestershire of losing its tri-service control if the fire service control were taken to a different place. As the Minister knows, Gloucestershire has a bid in to be the centre for either part of the region or the whole of region. I suspect it would be the former.
	Lest anyone think that this is an academic debate, while we are debating a change to the place where the fire service is run, there are also debates taking place within the police and the ambulance service about similar reorganisations. I am seeking further assurances from the Government; if these services are subject to any changes, rather than piecemeal debates, we should have an open and transparent debate and look at the strengths and weaknesses of how the services are organised.
	Although I am critical of the organisation of counties in some respects, certainly county councils, I see some merit in the emergency services coming together. I am worried that even with the additional safeguards in the Bill, there is a slippery slope down which we are passing. If we lose the fire service from the local area, the police and the ambulance service are bound to follow because of the arguments regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would be far less effective if the three services were not together.
	I ask the Minister to give an assurance that if we look at these matters, we do so with the benefit of full consultation. We ought to listen to the people who run the services as well as those who benefit from them. At the moment, they are not convinced about a sub-regional provision, let alone a regional provision. It is right and proper that people should have their opinions listened to.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may wish to draw attention to the fact that regardless of whether the Government create combined fire authorities in a region, regionalisation is taking place through the regional management boards and the creation of just nine fire control rooms for the whole of England.

David Drew: I am well aware of that and it may be that that train is well on its way. I want to ensure that if that train reaches its destination, the rest of the trains do not have to follow. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, more so than the Government think. People want to be consulted. I hope that Ministers give assurances that there will be a proper debate, that people will be listened to and that the case—if there is one—to stay as we are or to do something slightly different can be factored in rather than wiped out.

Richard Younger-Ross: First, I wish to add my words of sympathy and those of my party to those of the Minister and the Conservative Opposition with regard to the two firemen who lost their lives tragically in Bethnal Green. We all know that firemen put their lives at risk every day. The public tend to hear only about disasters such as Chernobyl and 11 September, but other incidents do occur. Indeed, I found this loss particularly poignant and sad because during the war, my father was a firefighter who covered the Bethnal Green area.
	I largely agree with the point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made about giving credit where it is due. It is a shame that it was necessary for the Lords to produce an amendment that says almost exactly what we had already said in Committee. The Minister previously said that the inclusion of a reference to public safety was "unnecessary and potentially unhelpful". He has clearly changed his mind, and I am glad to learn that he has listened to the argument that was advanced.
	Of course, amendment No. 1 is not exactly the same as the original amendment. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I pointed out, we are not parliamentary draftsmen; rather, we were simply trying to establish a principle.

Philip Hammond: The Government opposed the principle.

Richard Younger-Ross: They opposed it not just in the detail but substantively.
	In Committee, we sought to create safeguards in respect of the establishment of regional fire authorities, and the amendments before us go some way towards doing that. Even so, certain issues remain outstanding and the Government will be judged by their actions, rather than their words. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will know, people in the south-west fear the prospect of a region stretching from his part of the world all the way down to Penzance. There is real concern in the south-west at the prospect of regional management boards and a single control room for the entire area.
	The Minister still has the opportunity to say that it would make sense to have two regional control rooms in the south-west. That would be a step forward, and it would make more sense than having just one regional control room located in Bristol or Exeter. The hon. Member for Stroud made a very good case for having a tri-service control room, but he knows that he is fighting a hard, if not losing battle in that regard. The people of Cornwall would be extremely upset to discover that their control centre was in Gloucestershire.
	I am not going to rehearse the various debates that we had in Committee. The Minister made it clear then that computers and other new technology will ensure that everything works fine. Since then, I have spoken to various people in the service and they are not convinced; they would like a little more flexibility.
	Legitimate concerns about regionalisation remain. Hard-won concessions on inquiries were secured in Committee, and other more minor concessions have been made. The reputation of this House would be higher if, instead of fighting over adding the odd word or phrase such as "public safety", we took a more consensual approach to these matters. Had we done so in Committee, the Bill, instead of being good—substantially, it is good—would have been very good.

Phil Hope: I thank Members for their contributions. It is slightly odd to be criticised for being a listening Government—a Government who understand the points that are being made, be it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Third Reading, on Report or in the other place. It seems a shame that we could not get some recognition for the fact that we listened to the concerns of Members from all parts of the House.
	I should make it clear that as a result of the amendments, we could have combinations of fire and rescue authorities below, at and above the regional level. That flexibility remains, and the safeguards are in the Bill.
	The draft regional assemblies Bill, which will be published very shortly, will explain how, if there is an elected regional assembly, responsibility for fire and rescue services will be at the regional level. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will have to wait—I hope he does not miss his flight tomorrow—but it will not be for long, and when he has seen the draft Bill we can have the discussions about that.
	We responded to the concerns expressed in Committee, and now we have an alternative approach.

Philip Hammond: Without giving away too much about the still under wraps Bill, can the Minister tell us whether it contains any test for the creation of a regional fire and rescue authority similar to the one in this Bill? Is there a requirement that it be demonstrably in the interests of safety or indeed efficiency, economy and effectiveness?

Phil Hope: I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to have early sight of certain parts of a Bill yet to be published, but I regret that I cannot satisfy him on this occasion. I am sure that when he sees the Bill tomorrow he will be as pleased as we are about the powers that regional assemblies will have to provide a better focus for the regions of the north.
	I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about regional control centres. The national framework, which he has no doubt seen, clearly states the rationale for introducing a network of regional control rooms, because of the need to support resilience requirements and achieve major efficiencies that consultants have pointed out. I cannot say any more to him about the actual process, as we are right in the middle of it, with bids being received for control centres in various regions and being properly and fully evaluated. The decision on regional control rooms followed wide consultation, and a detailed appraisal is now being made of the bids.

Philip Hammond: The Minister mentioned the national framework and what it says about regional control rooms. Can he confirm that, following other amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords, it is a draft national framework and it will not have effect until both Houses agree to the order that implements it?

Phil Hope: The framework currently before us is already in operation, although it is true that we have made a further concession, and I will say more about that when we get to the relevant amendments. An order will need to be made through the negative resolution procedure for the draft national framework in the future. The current framework is being used by fire and rescue authorities as guidance. We are introducing a contract between central Government and fire and rescue authorities, which will have the strength of being approved through negative resolution as part of this legislation.

Philip Hammond: I am confused, and I seek the Minister's guidance. Lords amendment No. 5 introduces a provision whereby the framework will
	"have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order."
	If—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not get into the next group of amendments. Let us dispose of the first group first.

Phil Hope: On that point of clarification, to come into effect in law, the national framework will require a statutory instrument, but in effect it is being put into operation now in relationships between Government and fire and rescue authorities. It is working, but it is in draft form and becomes legal when the order is made. I am sorry if I have strayed into other territory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled.
	On the question raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) we were not opposed to use of the term "public safety" in principle when we were in Committee. Indeed, I have read the Committee Hansard and it was made quite clear in those proceedings that the Government intended to keep clause 2(2)(b) in the interests of public safety. The fact is that we have listened and responded positively and we are now including a reference to public safety, as the hon. Gentleman requested. We could not accept the amendment that he proposed in Committee because it was technically flawed. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about why it was flawed, but that is why we did not accept it.
	With those points of clarification, I urge the House to accept the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Fire and Rescue National Framework

Lords amendment: No. 5.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 and No.14.

Phil Hope: Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges and addresses the concerns that were raised in the House and in the other place about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework—an item that we were discussing just a moment ago. Concerns were raised that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. The amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State can introduce any "significant" changes to the framework. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new requirement for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework.
	Turning briefly to Lords amendment No. 14, it is straightforwardly consequential on Lords amendment No. 5. It removes clause 60(2), which at present disapplies the reference to "Parliament" in clause 21(6) to the exercise of the Bill's powers by the National Assembly for Wales for the simple reason that it is the UK Parliament, not the Welsh one. Lords amendment No. 14, if agreed to, will mean that clause 21(6) no longer includes such a reference—hence clause 60(2) is unnecessary.
	Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9 commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once in every two years. The Bill as originally drafted stated that the Secretary of State would report on the national framework from "time to time", which had been interpreted as a somewhat vague commitment, and while we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, we believe that the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process.
	Finally, Lords amendment No. 6 builds into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish an intervention protocol under which the powers to intervene in clause 22 would be exercised. We have always said that we are happy to follow the provisions of the local government intervention protocol in exercising those powers. We therefore propose to consult fire and rescue service stakeholders on the application of the local government intervention protocol to the powers contained in clause 22. That will give fire and rescue authorities and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the procedures that we will follow, should intervention under clause 22 prove necessary.
	Since the local government intervention protocol is specifically designed to address the needs of poorly performing authorities, we believe that it will be appropriate to apply it to the powers contained in clause 22. However, the amendment gives us the opportunity to review the protocol if, following consultation, it becomes clear that there are additional factors that need to be taken into account. Following all necessary consultation, we will publish the protocol that has been agreed. I hope that this provision, in addition to our previous amendment to clause 21, which makes the national framework subject to parliamentary approval, serves to address the concerns that the Opposition have expressed about the way in which the powers in clause 22 may be used in practice.

Philip Hammond: I wish that it had been this easy in Standing Committee. I wish that the Minister had agreed at that time that the Opposition's comments and concerns were justified, and that he had said that he would take them on board immediately and incorporate them in the Bill. We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.

Phil Hope: No, we could not.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says that we could not have done that, but we will examine that in a moment.
	As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 5 provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the national framework. As I shall explain, we think that that is very important. In Committee, we moved similar amendments, although they were less strong than these. Lords amendment No. 91, rejected in Standing Committee, would have required the Houses of Parliament merely to note the national framework.
	We agree that the Government's solution is better, and it is more than I dared to ask for in Committee. It is excellent that the Government now require a statutory instrument to be used in this matter. However, it is a pity that the Government rejected our amendment, which required that Parliament should have to do something positive—that is, take note of the document—before the framework came into effect. At the time, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
	"The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman"—
	that is, me—
	"against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 243.]
	Yet that is the same national framework that the Minister is now laying before us with a provision that will render it subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of a statutory instrument. Apparently, he no longer thinks that it will be impossible for people to understand it without the aid of a lawyer. That is an interesting turn of events.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is too kind to the Minister.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I am too kind, and I am sure that other hon. Members will contribute to the debate in a moment.
	We are delighted that we have got what we wanted—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the framework. Coincidentally, the final draft version of the framework has just been published. I confess that I have not had a chance to read it in minute detail but, as the Ministers will know, this has been a busy week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell the House whether there are any substantive changes from the draft that hon. Members absorbed all those months ago.
	Anyone glancing at the document will see how substantive it is. It is longer than the Bill. The Bill effectively incorporates the framework, by reference, so that the framework is to a large extent the meat in the Bill's sandwich. It deals with vital matters such as targets. The Minister does not like me talking about targets, but they are one reason why we were so concerned to secure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the national framework.
	Last year, Ministers changed the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home, and for deliberate fires. They extended the deadline for achieving a certain percentage reduction in accidental deaths in the home from 2004 to 2010—a massive relaxation of the target. They also reduced substantially the target for the number of deliberately caused fires, saying that the collapse in the scrap metal market made it difficult to achieve.

Phil Hope: Correct.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says that that is correct, but the changes were sneaked out without fanfare. The fact that they had been made emerged only in debate.
	Quite properly, the targets are at the heart of the framework document. They are the objectives that everything else in that document drives towards. If Ministers want to change such substantive matters of policy, that deserves some scrutiny. Changes should not just be sneaked in. The targets presented in the framework document will, I assume, be capable of being scrutinised when we get the statutory instrument in due course, presumably in the autumn or spill-over sittings.
	When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us something about the situation on targets for a reduction in deliberate fires. Ministers have made great play of the problems in the scrap metal market as a driver of their need to relax those targets, but I read articles in the Sunday newspapers this week telling us that the scrap metal industry would effectively shut down on Monday and no longer accept redundant vehicles for processing. That was because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in implementing EU directives on landfill and the classification of waste as hazardous, had failed to clarify the status of what is known, inelegantly, as shredder residue from the scrapped car processing industry. My immediate thought when I read that article was of the Minister and his problem with the 35,000 redundant vehicles that the scrap processing industry would no longer accept. What is happening, and what will it do to the targets set out in the national framework for a reduction in deliberately set fires? Are we not on the brink of a massive explosion in the number of abandoned vehicles on our streets? Local authorities will have to deal with them, and many will be the subject of arson attacks.
	Integrated risk management programmes and regional management boards are vital components of the Government's programme, as set out in the national framework, but they do not appear in the Bill. The national framework, in many ways, is the substantive document and the Bill is the enabling mechanism.
	Lords amendment No. 6 deals with the intervention protocol. We tabled an amendment and debated the issue in Committee that made the same proposal. The Minister gave us an assurance that the local government intervention code would be used, and I understand that that is still the starting point for Ministers. However, Ministers have recognised that, in the special circumstances of the fire and rescue services, especially a failing fire and rescue service, it might be a good idea to have a consultation with the various stakeholders to see whether any mission-specific provisions need to be included in the intervention code to make it fit for the purpose of dealing with a failing fire and rescue service. That is eminently sensible, but it could have been done in the Commons, saving the Lords a lot of time. In fact, it could have saved the Commons a lot of time arguing over the same issues, in Committee and on Report.
	Similarly, we are delighted that the Government have accepted, in Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, a requirement to report not less than once in every two years to Parliament. Those were almost precisely the words of the amendment we tabled in Committee, which stated,
	"leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'at least once in every two years'".
	The Minister will, no doubt, have a convoluted argument, devised by highly paid civil servants, as to why those words would not do the job as well as Lords amendment No. 9, but we cannot help feeling that it would be nice, once in a while, if such amendments could be accepted in the Commons.
	Perhaps when amending clause 24 the Government should have considered including a provision for a report on their performance against the national framework. There will be reports on the performance of fire and rescue authorities and on the Government's interventions where they fail. I have already mentioned that the Government slacked off in achieving their objectives under the national framework relating to targets on dealing with deliberately set fires and accidental fire deaths in the home, so it would be interesting for an annual report to be made to Parliament, in which the Government carry out a self-assessment on how they are achieving those objectives.
	There are three improvements to the Bill in this group and we welcome them. It is a shame about the way they were made.

Richard Younger-Ross: Earlier, the Minister complained that we had not given him credit for the fact that the Government were listening. We are grateful to the Government for listening but, although we support the amendments, we are concerned that the tone of the debate has become slightly Shakespearean. I am referring not to the Minister's oratorical style—or suggesting that he is speaking in rhyme—but to the fact that Shakespeare rewrote a lot of history. I suspect that some of what Ministers are telling us today is a rewriting of what actually happened in Committee.

Philip Hammond: While the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister lauding this listening Government, did he notice that they seem to be better at listening in the House where they do not have a majority than in the one where they normally can command a majority?

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that may have something to do with it.
	The Government told us that the amendments could not be tabled earlier due to technicalities and that it was not a matter of principle. However, when we were discussing amendments to clause 22 in Committee, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
	"In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on priorities and objectives for the service."
	Later, he said:
	"I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 238–242.]
	I am pleased that the Government have listened and we give them credit for that. Our debate in Committee would have been shorter and more conciliatory if they had listened to us then, but I am pleased that they have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled the amendments in Committee. I congratulate him on tabling them and the Government on eventually listening.

Phil Hope: I shall try not to speak in iambic pentameters—[Interruption.] I know about iambic pentameters—I went to a comprehensive school.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the amendments as excellent. I am glad that he is so pleased. I want to make it clear that the amendment means that there will be an order by negative resolution to bring the national framework into effect. We are not turning the framework itself into a statutory instrument, but an order will have to be passed by the House.

Philip Hammond: Can the Minister explain to those of us who are not well versed in the subtleties of such things the difference between the order being effectively in effect, with everybody having to abide by it, and legally in effect? What would be the situation if the House chose not to approve the order to bring the national framework into effect, when regional centres and control rooms have been reorganised on the back of it?

Phil Hope: There will be a lot of disappointed people in the fire and rescue services—as my right hon. Friend the Minister has just told me. The debate on targets that the hon. Gentleman would like us to engage in, but on which I shall not be drawn, is one that he may choose to initiate when we debate the order to bring the national framework into effect. It is a matter for him and other hon. Members to take that option if they so wish.
	There are no substantive changes to the original draft. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants to see the detailed responses to the consultation on the original draft, he is more than welcome to look them up on the ODPM website, which is excellent, and I recommend other hon. Members to use it.
	On the local government intervention protocol, it is true that we have taken on board hon. Members' views. The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that we did not accept the amendment that he tabled in Committee. Let us say that we have taken the spirit of the intent of that amendment—flawed though it was—and drafted a better amendment. It is the privilege of Government to be able to do that.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) supports what we are doing, and I am glad that we have achieved consensus across all parties on accepting the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 33
	 — 
	Pensions etc.

Lords amendment: No. 10.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment Nos. 15 to 17.

Phil Hope: Lords amendment No. 10 would rectify a possible gap in the powers to establish arrangements for the funding of fire and rescue service pensions. My colleague, Lord Rooker, made it clear when moving the amendment in the other place that the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", committed us to
	"introduce alternative arrangements for local authority funding of service pensions, in consultation with the fire and rescue authorities".
	In 2001, a joint Treasury, Home Office and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions working group reviewed the current finance arrangements for funding police and firefighter pensions and recommended that a new pension account system should be developed. We announced our intent to pursue that option in the 2004–05 fire and rescue national framework, which was published on 16 July.
	The underlying principle of the scheme is that Government would pay current pensions and that employers and employees would make contributions to the Government to meet future pension liabilities. In practical terms, authorities would pay pensions from a separate pension account to which employers and employees both contribute. Normally, a payment would be made by the Government to the fire and rescue authorities to balance the account at the end of the year. Provision for those payments could be made under clause 33(2)(e).
	An authority's pensions account could be in surplus at the end of the year— the contribution that it and its employees made to future liabilities exceeded the authority's existing pensions payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works fairly and consistently and to protect the national taxpayer and other authorities, we need to ensure that a balancing payment can be made to central Government. New clause 33(2)(ea), proposed under Lords amendment No. 10, would permit such payments to be made.
	Lords amendments No. 15 and 16 amend clause 61, so that all the provisions in schedules 1 and 2, which amend or repeal pension legislation, extend to Scotland. Lords amendment No. 17 amends the reference to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, in schedule 1, so that it applies to Scottish fire authorities in the same way as it does to English and Welsh fire and rescue authorities. Pensions are a reserved matter in relation to Scotland.

Philip Hammond: I think that the Minister will find that Lord Evans, and not Lord Rooker, moved the relevant amendment in the other place.
	The Minister will forgive me for being slightly suspicious and sceptical of any provision enabling money to be paid to the Secretary of State that is inserted late into arrangements for the operation of a pension fund set up for the benefit of employees. We remember the Chancellor's attempt to get himself paid from pension funds, with his £5 billion annual pension smash-and-grab raid. We want to be sure that this is not another smash-and-grab raid on employees' pensions funds.
	When Lord Evans moved the amendment in the other place, he said:
	"However, it is possible that an authority's pension account will be in surplus at the end of the year—in other words, that the contribution that it and its employees make to future liabilities will exceed its existing pension payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works in a fair and consistent way, we need to ensure that a balancing payment could be made to central government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC 414.]
	I had always worked on the assumption that if employees and employers over-contributed to future liabilities, the benefit of that over-contribution would accrue to future contributors, who would need to contribute a little less.
	I hope the Minister does not think that I am labouring the point, but this is a fairly unusual provision. It also seems unusual that the Treasury, which presumably has some oversight of the provisions when they are drafted, should have missed a tiny clause providing for payments to be made to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister elaborate on how, when and where it was decided that the provision, which was not included in the original drafting, was necessary? Who spotted the need for it, and in what circumstances do the Government expect that such payments will be made?
	What auditing will there be of the pension arrangements? If payments are to be made out of a pension fund to the Secretary of State from contributions that have been made or partly been made by employers and employees, it will be reassuring to know that proper independent auditing of the pension fund accounts is taking place to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have a slush fund that he could get his hands on. The matter should be dealt with properly at arm's length.
	The Minister said that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 add to schedule 1 new statutes that extend the scope of the provisions to Scotland. However, he did not make clear to the House whether the Government determined that the change was required because of the other change that had been made through amendment No. 10 or whether it was simply an omission or error in the original drafting. Were statutes that should have been specified in schedule 1 omitted? If it is the latter, that is again an example of the dangers of rushed legislation. If the additional provisions in schedule 1 arise from the changes made by amendment No. 10, that is a different matter, and I accept that they are consequential on the amendment. Will the Minister clarify that?

John McDonnell: I am relieved by the Minister's explanation of the provision for making payments to the Secretary of State. For one minute, I thought that we were going to pay the Secretary of State's pension and that this was a new incentive scheme for Ministers on some form of productivity deal.
	May we clarify who will make the decision on the payments and on what criteria, how that decision will be independently assessed and verified and what role the House will play in determining or verifying the payment? Is this a standard clause as used in other public sector pension schemes that have been introduced by legislation in recent years?

Richard Younger-Ross: The points made by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were extremely valid. If the fire service and fire officers are to have any faith in their pension schemes, those questions put need to be answered. I shall say no more because the points have been concisely made.

Phil Hope: I understand the concerns that hon. Members have expressed, so I am pleased to say that I can clarify matters and give them the reassurances that they want to hear.
	A pension account is simply an account held specifically for receiving pension contributions and making pension payments. A pension fund—that is what we are not talking about—is something in which pension contributions are invested to pay for future pension liabilities. Let me say a little more about this so that the House can be clear about the matter.
	The firefighters' pension scheme is currently financed in the same way as police pensions—on a pay-as-you-go basis. There are no pension funds. Individual fire and rescue authorities administer the scheme locally, and they meet the cost of pension outgoings, such as pension awards, lump-sum payments and outgoing transfer values, from their revenue accounts.
	There are two main problems with the current arrangements. First, volatility exists because of significant fluctuations in the number of firefighters retiring or transferring out of an authority's employment in any given year. Indeed, many fire and rescue authorities cited one-off pension payments as a major factor behind this year's high increases in council tax precepts. Secondly, there is a problem with transparency. The high proportion of expenditure by fire and rescue authorities on pension payments obscures the actual level of available resources for operational work. As pension costs increase over time, the proportion of an authority's expenditure on pension payments will also increase.
	The option of allowing fire and rescue authorities to pay pensions from a separate pension account to which both employers and employees contribute, with a payment from central Government to balance the account at the end of the year, would alleviate those problems. However, it would be possible for an authority to end up with its pension account in surplus at the end of a particular year, so to protect the national taxpayer any such balance should be able to travel in the opposite direction.
	Early indications from the Local Government Association and fire and rescue authorities show that they would welcome changing the financial arrangements. I make it clear that the Secretary of State would recoup only audited surpluses from fire and rescue authorities' pension accounts. That would happen after all pension payments and awards for a year had been made. I hope that my clarification of the technical points satisfies hon. Members.

Philip Hammond: I am slightly confused, although perhaps there is just a linguistic problem. The Minister carefully set out the distinction between a pension fund and a pension account and said that payments will be made to the Secretary of State from a pension account. However, Lords amendment No. 10 refers to "a fund". Is he saying that the fund to which the amendment refers is not a fund, but an account?

Phil Hope: I think that I am. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I asked similar questions during my discussions about the amendments, which is why I am able to give him such reassurances.
	I was asked whether the consequential amendments were tabled due to an error. There was an oversight, so we are dealing with that now. Given my explanations and reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 43
	 — 
	Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc

Lords amendment: No. 11.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 12.

Phil Hope: Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to clause 43 will extend the powers of a firefighter so that he or she can do anything that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary if he or she believes that a fire is about to break out for the purpose of preventing that fire. The question of whether to extend the powers of firefighters in such a way has been discussed in both Houses during the passage of the Bill—I remember our exchanges in Committee well.
	Although in our view the likelihood of such an event occurring remains small, we believe that it would be prudent to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to give firefighters this modest, yet potentially important, extension of powers. I emphasise that the power could be exercised only if firefighters had a reasonable belief that a fire was about to break out, so they would thus have to account for and justify their actions.

Philip Hammond: Once again, the amendments are technical and, once again, we asked for them in Committee. They address real issues raised by real firefighters who gave us real examples. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say again that he thought the powers were unlikely to be needed. We recited in Committee examples of firefighters facing the dilemma of seeing a dangerous situation developing that they could easily intervene to prevent, but could not do so legally. The perhaps slightly artificial example is the candle knocked over on the table when the gas jet on the cooker is turned on. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the firefighter would not have the power to break in to prevent that from happening. He would have to stand, looking in through the window, until the explosion occurred, whereupon he would be permitted legally to break into the premises and extinguish the fire, which two minutes earlier he could easily have prevented from happening.
	We thought that that was absurd. The fire commissioner for London also thought that it was absurd. I am glad that the Government have finally decided to agree with us. It is not satisfactory for only a constable to be legally protected when breaking into premises in that situation. A constable may not be to hand. Goodness knows, the way things are going they might become rare commodities indeed.

Phil Hope: There are a lot more under Labour.

Philip Hammond: There may well be, but they are all standing around Westminster and people in Surrey cannot find one when they need one. If the Minister doubts that, I invite him to come and have a look. I am very willing to take him on a tour of Guildford town centre on a Friday evening—[Interruption.] Yep, a night out with Hammond is on offer. He could reciprocate by inviting me to spend a Friday evening in Corby, but we will leave that on ice for the new Session.
	There is no doubt that a firefighter presented with a fire that is about to break out would undoubtedly break in and do what needed to be done, but he would expose himself to a risk in doing so. If people act in good faith while serving the community, it is right that they enjoy the protection of the law. We are pleased that at the last knockings, as it were, of the Bill we have managed to persuade the Government that that should be the case.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Government should be given slightly more credit. The Minister said in Committee that they were sympathetic to such an amendment. In his summation, he made sympathetic noises on extending the powers, so much so that the hon.   Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) withdrew his amendment. We can congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on saying that they would listen and then returning to the House with an amendment.

Phil Hope: It appears we have consensus. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we were sympathetic to such an amendment. We wanted more evidence and examples. Those were forthcoming and we have the evidence to agree to the amendment.
	I do not get many offers of a good night out in Guildford, but if this amendment has achieved nothing else, it has provided the opportunity not only for that but for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to visit Corby, my constituency, which has the Rockingham motor speedway, one of the finest racing tracks in Europe.

Richard Younger-Ross: If the Minister wants the opportunity of visiting Guildford, he does not have to go to the house of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). My mother lives in Weybridge and we would be quite happy to show him around.

Phil Hope: I am not going to visit anyone's house.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 17 agreed to.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Lords amendment: No. 18.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 19.

Phil Hope: The amendments amend schedule 1 to make minor consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1985 and the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Unfortunately, the need for these amendments was not picked up at an earlier stage of drafting, so the changes were made during the Bill's consideration in the Lords.

Philip Hammond: It is more sloppy drafting due to the pressure of legislation, the artificial curtailment of debate and the improper consideration of Bills.
	There may be those who think that there could be no question to ask on these amendments, but I have one question for the Minister. Lords amendment No. 19 deletes the reference to
	"fire authority under the Fire Services Acts 1947 to 1959"
	and substitutes the term "fire and rescue authority". We understand why: the Bill introduces that term. Why is it not necessary to provide a statutory reference to the term—in other words to a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004—when clearly the architecture of the Severn Bridges Act previously required the term "fire authority" to be clarified by the words
	"under the Fire Services Act 1947 to 1959"?
	I know that the Minister will have given consideration to that point and I would be grateful if he could clarify that apparent inconsistency.

Phil Hope: I was, of course, well aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Unfortunately, I am unable to respond at this precise moment, but I can assure him that the change is of minor consequence. I will write to him and clarify the point that he has raised.   [Interruption.] Inspiration has arrived. Lords amendment No. 19 amends section 8 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 so that it refers to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill rather than fire authorities under the 1947 Act. It is consequential to the primary legislation.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	The Causeway Campaign

Roger Casale: I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,700 of my constituents who are supporters of The Causeway campaign—The Causeway being a road that runs across Wimbledon common.
	The petition
	Declares that the status of The Causeway, SW19, as a free parking area should be safe-guarded and brought within the jurisdiction of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to clarify or otherwise amend the provisions of The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 such that The Causeway be brought within the jurisdiction of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators and remain a free parking area.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Post Office Closures

Andrew Rosindell: I present a petition on behalf of no fewer than 783 constituents of mine in Romford from the Rush Green and Crowlands areas of the Romford constituency.
	The people of those communities are very concerned that two local post offices could be closed following a review by Post Office Ltd. They are the Rush Green post office and the Crowlands post office. Both post offices look after the western side of my constituency, covering two thirds of the Brooklands ward, close to the border with Dagenham. They serve a diverse community of many elderly people and young families as well. Many local shopkeepers and residents are worried that if both post offices were to shut, that would have a detrimental effect on the local community.
	The Rush Green post office is situated in the Dagenham road and serves both the Dagenham and the Romford constituencies. The petition is supported by members of St. Augustine's church in Rush Green and St. Andrew's and St. Agnes' church in central Romford. It is also supported by the local councillors for the Brooklands ward, Councillor Jean Gower and Councillor Barry Tebbit. The main signatory is Robert Benham, the Brooklands ward co-ordinator.
	The petition reads:
	The Petition of the People of the Rush Green and Crowlands areas of Romford Declares that the Rush Green and Crowlands Post Offices are threatened with closure. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep Rush Green and Crowlands Post Offices open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Department of Trade and Industry (Job Cuts)

John McDonnell: In the interests of productivity I have two petitions to present. The first is on behalf of the staff of the Department of Trade and Industry and states:
	The staff in the Department of Trade and Industry have grave concerns about the recent announcement of job cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry; and express their opposition to any compulsory redundancies within the Department or compulsory relocations.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to further consider the implications of the job cuts and relocations and the effect on the staff in the Department, and further urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his recent announcement of further job cuts and relocations.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Department for Education and Skills (Job Cuts)

John McDonnell: The second petition is on behalf of the staff of the Department for Education and Skills—more than 1,400 petitioners—and declares
	that the petitioners have grave concerns about the recent organisational review within the Department for Education and Skills, especially the proposed job cuts; and express their opposition to any compulsory redundancies, site closures, contracting out or increases in workload.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to further consider the implications of the organisational review and the effect on the staff in the Department, and to amend his decision.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Penistone Recreation Ground

Michael Clapham: I present the petition of the Penistone against greenspace encroachment campaign and others. It declares
	that the Petitioners object to Planning Application B/03/2171/PU which allows "Busy Bees" to build on Penistone Recreation Ground. The Petitioners further declare that the loss of the playground and re-positioning of other facilities on the Recreation Ground will be detrimental to the community as well as to the traditional events held there, including Penistone Agricultural Show.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to call in "Busy Bees" Planning Application B/03/2171/PU for his own assessment.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Police Officers (Southend)

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a great campaigning local newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser (Southend). The petition has been signed by more than 2,000 local residents in Southend, West, who feel that Southend is in desperate need of extra police officers who are properly trained to patrol the streets of Southend in order to make it a safer place in which to live, work and socialise.
	The petition states:
	The petition of the Yellow Advertiser Newspaper, Southend and others
	Declares that Southend Police Division is in need of 10 extra police officers to patrol the streets.
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to pass legislation to provide for the deployment of extra police officers in Southend.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Driving Instructors

David Taylor: I rise to present the petition of the Derby and District Driving Instructors Association, which overlaps my constituency. Approved driving instructors throughout the country are alarmed by the Driving Standards Agency's proposal to introduce multiple-choice questions and hazard perception tests for all currently registered approved driving instructors. They believe that to require an ADI to undertake a hazard perception test is at best ridiculous and at worst insulting, because if instructors were not on top of hazard perception skills, they would not survive the average working day. They say that the DSA has discussed continuous professional development over the past two years, and they believe that that is the preferable way forward rather than the threat to remove them from the register if they fail a computer game. They point out that removal from the register is always possible under the fit and proper clause.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons, the petition of 60 driving instructors and others in and around North-West Leicestershire declares that we the undersigned formally protest at the decision of the Driving Standards Agency to impose on qualified driving instructors a requirement to pass a further theory exam—including a hazard perception test—and to threaten to remove the livelihoods of those not successful within three attempts. The Petitioners—
	who are led by Pamela A. Davies of 18 Iveagh close, Measham—
	therefore request that the House of Commons do reject the decision aforementioned of the DSA. And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Post Office Closure

Parmjit Dhanda: I rise to present a petition bearing the signatures of 3,520 Gloucester residents, compiled by me, the "Gloucester Citizen" newspaper, Councillor Andrew Gravels and a range of community groups.
	The petition declares:
	To the House of Commons, the petition of residents of Gloucester declares that they oppose the plans by Morrisons to close the local post office in Abbeydale and that they are leading a campaign to keep the local post office open. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that supermarkets consult Post Office Ltd., Postwatch, hon. Members and local communities before closing local post offices. And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ME

Anthony D Wright: I rise to present the petition of Action for ME on behalf of the 240,000 people in the UK affected by ME.
	The petition
	Declares that the direct cost to the nation of lost revenue, benefits and healthcare spend for the 240,000 people with ME amounts to £3.5 billion per annum. The petitioners further declare that a minimum of 1 per cent. of that cost, being £35 million, is required to begin research into this disabling chronic illness for which there is no cure or effective treatment at present.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to provide for a cross-government response to the wide scale health problem of ME and for the implementation of a fully funded research programme. And the petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

DR. RAJ MATTU

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Jim Cunningham: I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker for granting the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and I appreciate his allowing us once again to debate the matter. The debate is by no means meant to constitute an attack on the staff at Walsgrave hospital, who have done a wonderful job, especially since the change in leadership.
	This debate is probably the fourth on Dr. Mattu's suspension, and it is the third case of an unresolved suspension at Walsgrave hospital. The current cost of those three suspensions amounts to £1.2 million, which could have been used to deliver better NHS services. It is therefore vital that we resolve the matter, especially given the growing economic cost to the public, which has caused much community protest, not to mention the loss of a competent doctor from Walsgrave hospital.
	Dr. Mattu's suspension has lasted for more than two and a half years and, given that the time period for the panel to examine the case will extend to the end of January and possibly February, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West probably agrees—the doctor should be reinstated without prejudice until the matter is sorted out.
	We now find that the disciplinary panel chosen to deal with the case will not meet until the end of January 2005, a further six months away. Surely such a procedure cannot be deemed adequate. I believe that in such cases it benefits neither the doctor in question nor the hospital for action to be delayed for more than two and a half years—approaching three, in fact. This is having a lasting effect on the doctor and his family, and the cost to the NHS is growing.
	There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has no time for the resolution of cases such as Dr. Mattu's. What has happened to the implementation of the National Audit Office's report and recommendations? I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West agrees that there should be an independent inquiry into the three cases that have occurred over the past three or four years, to find out exactly how the trust has handled them. There is a big question mark over the way in which it deals with such cases.
	I stress that we are not prejudicing the outcome of the case, and only want to resolve the issue once and for all. We are asking for justice for Dr. Mattu. While we must question the competence and efficiency of a disciplinary process that has continued for perhaps more than three years and has yet to reach a conclusion, we believe that Dr. Mattu was suspended for whistleblowing. If there are other documented reasons—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will probably mention this—the trust should make us aware of them, rather than allowing rumours to fly about all over Coventry. That is in the public interest, and will restore confidence in the competence of the trust's decision making.
	We understand that the cost of Dr. Mattu's case is now probably more than £500,000, although it should be borne in mind that that goes back to about six months ago. There should be an independent inquiry into the way in which the case has been handled. It should be dealt with by an independently selected panel to ensure its validity, and to ensure that there is a timely resolution at the least possible cost to the public. As far as we are aware, Dr. Mattu was not suspended for medical reasons.
	I believe that Dr. Mattu's human rights are being denied because of the time that his case has taken, and the inappropriate way in which the trust has been handling matters. The trust should bring to a conclusion any other allegations against Dr. Mattu, and state what they are and the reasons for his suspension. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will agree, the Minister should intervene directly. It is no good passing the matter on to the trust; the Minister has the powers, and should deal with it in a proper manner. He should set up a proper independent inquiry, and reinstate the doctor until such time as the panel does meet and decide whether he is guilty as charged.
	As I am sure the Minister knows, there is public concern in Coventry and rumours—not very pleasant rumours—are flying about. I hope that he will take what I have said on board, and look into the matter. It seems to me that every time a consultant or other doctor is suspended at that hospital, all sorts of stories circulate and we eventually find that there was no basis for them. That is no way in which to conduct the business of a hospital and, in particular, a disciplinary procedure.

James Plaskitt: I greatly admire the hard work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on this case. I intervene because, during this lengthy inquiry, Dr. Mattu has become a constituent of mine. When I contacted my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of my constituent, he confirmed that the matter had been unresolved for too long. Does that not add weight to my hon. Friend's point about the need for further ministerial intervention?

Jim Cunningham: I endorse that, and I am interested to learn that the Minister has considered the argument that the case has gone on for too long. The question for him now is, what will he do about it? As I have said, many people in Coventry are very concerned. My hon. Friends and I are not taking sides; what concerns us is that justice should be done and the doctor's human rights protected. If this had happened in a factory in Coventry, there would have been a strike because people would not have tolerated it. Why is it taking nearly three years to deal with a disciplinary matter? An industrial relations dispute outside the hospital would have been resolved within a maximum of about three months. It utterly defies belief.
	We want the situation to be resolved as soon as possible. Someone has to cover for the doctor. People tend to forget that. They also tend to forget that, while Dr. Mattu has not been practising his trade, medicine has advanced and there is a danger that we could lose his skills because he has not been allowed to practise and develop his skills using the latest techniques. If he had been a football player and denied the opportunity to ply his trade, the European Court of Justice would have intervened—someone would have intervened and said, "Enough is enough."
	I ask the Minister to sort the matter out. Let us get it cleared up once and for all. It is a running sore in Coventry and it must be sorted out.

Geoffrey Robinson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in thanking the Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing it. May I say how pleased we are to see my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) lending us his support?
	Whatever else is said about this matter, it has gone on far too long and has cost far too much money. The longer it has gone on, the murkier it has got. We put it to the Minister that his intervention is absolutely required. If he cannot go to the extent of reinstatement, there are certain things that he can do. They were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South when he referred to the rumours that are flying around Coventry.
	The wretched rumours that I heard just yesterday—I am in no way critical of the staff at Walsgrave; to my knowledge, it is the chairman and chief executive who seem to be leading the campaign against Dr. Mattu—were to the effect that Dr. Mattu was involved in a court case, that the charges against him in that case were serious and that therefore the people who support Dr. Mattu had to be careful because there was new information that was damaging to his case, about which they should be aware before continuing that support.
	It is a serious business to have such briefing, which is emanating, as far as we can see, from the top at the trust, brought to our attention by Tory Members and by the chairman of the campaign to reinstate Dr. Mattu. One of our Labour councillors who is closely associated with the case also referred to it in a conversation with me.
	I thought that the best way to get the matter cleared up—it coincides neatly with today's debate, which I only heard about yesterday—was to write to Bryan Stoten, chairman of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, to ask him whether there was anything in the rumours about new information. I received a remarkable letter straight back, from which it is appropriate to read and to which I specifically draw the Minister's attention: Bryan Stoten says:
	"Thank you for your letter, received this morning.
	It is indeed the case"—
	this is important—
	"that new information has arisen concerning Dr. Mattu."
	The chairman identifies the new information as being as follows:
	"I received a letter, copied to the General Medical Council (GMC), from a member of the public regarding Dr. Mattu. The individual claimed that Dr. Mattu had appeared in court on a serious charge and stated that the case was 'not proven'."
	That is an interesting use of words.

Jim Cunningham: Scottish law.

Geoffrey Robinson: I think that the chairman must have thought that Dr. Mattu had migrated to the sheriff court in Glasgow or Edinburgh, as if that would wash. What he was really trying to do was much more insidious and I will come to that shortly.
	The chairman goes on to say that the GMC has requested that the trust provide
	"any relevant information which the Trust has in its possession pertaining to these issues, so that these issues can be considered under the GMC's Fitness to Practise procedures."
	He finishes by saying that the trust has sought its own legal opinion and we will be following that.
	I spoke to a solicitor, Mr Paul Dentith, who has agreed that I can name and quote him tonight. I believe that he represented Dr. Mattu in the only court case in which Dr. Mattu was involved; at least it is the only court case I know of in which he was involved. I asked Mr. Dentith what the case was about. He said that the case occurred about seven and a half years ago, so it is pretty new. The result of the court case is in the public domain, so that cannot possibly be new. The outcome of the case was an absolute, unequivocal acquittal of Dr. Mattu, who was also awarded costs, all of which information is in the public domain.
	Why does the chairman of the Walsgrave trust write to me—his letter was not labelled personal, or private and confidential; therefore, it is quite right for me to put it into the public domain via this debate—to say that the outcome of the court case was not proven? First, we all know that, in English law, one is either guilty or not; we do not have the third option that is available in Scottish law. So why put that into the public domain? I can tell the House why; he wants to create doubts about Dr. Mattu's character, which will then influence public opinion and influence us against continuing to support him. I do not think much of that.
	The information has been available since a snippet on the "Today" programme about Dr. Mattu on 29 May. It is now 21 July. Why has not the chairman informed himself so that he does not continue to spread this sort of disinformation to the public?

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on pursuing the matter. I came to the last debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Is he as disappointed as I am at the lack of progress over the last few months and at the attitude of Ministers? Should not they be doing much more to bring the trust to account?

Geoffrey Robinson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. It may be unpleasant for the Minister; I recall that, on the last occasion we debated the issue, he felt that we were being unfair to the trust and were using a position of which they could not avail themselves.

Keith Vaz: That is why we are here.

Geoffrey Robinson: Precisely. If the trust had not put disinformation into the public domain and had put in some real facts about the situation, it would have helped a great deal.
	I fear that the same will happen tonight but, on that occasion, the Minister said that he could not do anything about it and that procedures were procedures. However, some Ministers take a different view about procedures. We will be into the fourth year of this poor doctor's suspension. What in God's name can be right about these procedures—on a simple test case of alleged bullying, which happens every day of the week and has to be sorted out—that prevents a Minister from stepping in?
	Instead, we have a continuing campaign of snide implication, instead of getting to the bottom of the facts and dealing with them. I have written to the chairman, copying to him my words tonight, to the Minister and to the GMC to make sure that the actuality of the court case is brought to everybody's attention. Of course it should not be used at all; Mr. Paul Dentith authorised me to say that any organisation or person who sought to make reference to the case or go behind the decision of the court would be behaving very improperly.
	I hope that the Minister will take that on board, but if we hear the usual thing tonight—that we are being irresponsible, that he is a Minister and that procedures must continue—we can cut the debate short because we know it all before he starts. One thing he could do tonight would be to make it clear that this sort of briefing against Dr. Mattu should not continue. That is the minimum we ask for and I ask him to do that now.
	The answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South has said in all the debates we have had on the issue, is to have an independent inquiry. That is different from using the existing procedures and processes, but the fact is that the procedures have already been changed. It was the trust that insisted that we should deal with Dr. Mattu under the old procedures, which can last for an eternity. Why do we not use the current ones? That is the minimum that the Minister should do, and he could do it with no loss of face to anyone involved. Why does he not stop people continuing to brief against Dr. Mattu?
	If we had had an independent inquiry all those months ago, when we began this process—indeed, that is three or four Adjournment debates ago—the matter would have been settled by now and there would be no problem. One way or another, a conclusion would have been reached. As we have said all along, it is not for us to prejudge the outcome of whatever inquiry takes place. I am afraid that the inquiry will not finish by next January but will go on at least until March, by which time we will be into the fourth year of Dr. Mattu's suspension. If that is normal procedure, heaven help us when the procedure is abnormal.
	There are two other points to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. [Interruption.] Sadly, having been through this issue with him at least once before, I think that I know what he is going to say. The trust found that it was within its rights to deny three recommendations that were made to the panel by Dr. Sancassia, a most distinguished surgeon at the trust. On what grounds did it do so? That spun things out for another few months; indeed, everything that the trust does seems to point in that direction.
	The Minister will doubtless tell us that we are locked into this process and that we are to have another six or seven months of unjustified suspension. It is no good telling us that this is a neutral act, because we all know that it is by no means neutral. One only has to talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about trying to get a chief police officer suspended to see how neutrally that act is regarded; one has to go to a court of law to get a suspension—a neutral act—agreed. If the Minister can do nothing in this regard, will he at least deal with the continual briefing against Dr. Mattu? I can show the Minister the relevant correspondence, so that he can see the way in which matters have been handled. Can he not at least take direct ministerial action to stop the briefing?

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for his continuing interest in his local national health service, and for his persistence in securing a further Adjournment debate on this issue. I fear that I will be every bit as disappointing as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) expected, and I shall do my best to explain why.
	I am concerned about this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said, I confirmed to him in writing my view, which I have stated publicly, that this matter has gone on too long and at no little cost to the NHS. I have an ongoing interest in it, and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has kept me informed of progress. However, I should make it clear from the outset that our position has not changed, and nor can it. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West said, the trust's suspension of Dr Mattu is a neutral act. It is not, and should not be regarded as, a disciplinary sanction, and I can assure my hon. Friends that I am not taking sides on this issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West accuses the trust of putting matters into the public domain, but he has just told us that he wrote to the chairman of the trust. Was the chairman not supposed to reply? My hon. Friend has chosen to put this matter on the public record in Parliament—the most public platform of all.
	I am aware that, from Dr Mattu's perspective, the last two years have been anxious and frustrating, as they have been for—

Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Ladyman: No I will not. My hon. Friend has already taken up most of the time and I need to deal with some of the points that were raised.
	I realise that this has been an anxious and frustrating time for Dr. Mattu, but it has also been so for those who made the allegations. As I asked in the previous Adjournment debate on this issue, is somebody going to represent those who made the allegations? I suspect that one of the Members in this House tonight is the MP for those who made the allegations. When is somebody going to stand up for those people? That is why we must consider this a neutral act and make sure that it is properly investigated.
	I want to make it clear that the allegations that were made in February 2002—that is far too long ago—were serious and substantial. They were of a nature whereby Dr. Mattu could not remain on duty while they were investigated. The trust rightly took the view that they should be thoroughly investigated.
	An internal investigation was carried out, led by the trust's joint medical director, and in accordance with its agreed employment procedures. That investigation found that there was a prima facie case to be answered, and under those circumstances, and given the seriousness of the allegations, it was clearly correct for Dr. Mattu to be suspended while a formal investigation was undertaken.
	The trust also decided that the matter was too serious to be dealt with as a personal misconduct case within the trust, so it was obliged to take it to a professional misconduct disciplinary process. The professional disciplinary process is a carefully laid down and legalistic process, and I fear it takes time. It has been agreed nationally between the BMA and the Government, and the process applied locally gives Dr. Mattu a great deal of representation and protection, so my hon. Friends should be confident that his best interests are being served by going down that route.

Jim Cunningham: I do not necessarily disagree that there should be a full investigation. Our problem is about why it has taken nearly three years. That is what bothers us.

Stephen Ladyman: One of the reasons for that is that it is a legalistic process, and the BMA, in agreeing the process with the Government, built in a series of measures to ensure that people who are complained against have the time and the opportunity to build a defence case.
	It has been suggested, however, that the trust has been delaying the progress of the case, and even that it is in some way hoping that the issue will go away. I believe that such suggestions are disingenuous, and I can assure my hon. Friends that delays in progressing the case cannot be blamed entirely on the trust. For example, I am advised that there have been a number of occasions on which Dr. Mattu, I am sure for quite proper reasons, has cancelled pre-arranged meetings at the last minute, even telephoning the trust on the day of the meeting. I do not want to criticise—and I do not criticise—Dr. Mattu for the time that the case has been unable to make progress because of his unfortunate sickness in 2003, but it is not appropriate to blame the trust for that either.
	In addition, Dr. Mattu and his supporters have kept up a correspondence and media campaign, and it is their right to do so, but in doing so they have tied up resources at the trust that could otherwise have been used to deal more expeditiously with the case. Given all this, and given the fact that the disciplinary process is in any case a thorough and full one in order to protect Dr. Mattu's rights and allow him to build his defence—

Richard Bacon: Who wrote this rubbish?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is responding to the debate.

Stephen Ladyman: Nobody should be blaming the trust for the slow progress.

Keith Vaz: I am absolutely astonished at the complacency of the Minister's answer. He is a Minister of the Crown. Members of Parliament representing Coventry and other areas—Dr. Mattu has come to see me at my surgery—have raised these issues with him. What has he done to ensure that our concerns, properly raised in this place—where else would my hon. Friend come to raise them—are dealt with? What has he done since the last time the matter was raised in the House?

Stephen Ladyman: I have made sure that the case goes through the proper process, which has been agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors. That is the simple fact, even if my hon. Friends choose to ignore it.
	My hon. Friends will also appreciate that the trust is restricted in the response that it has been able to make to allegations and criticisms put in the public domain. My hon. Friends can go much further tonight than I can, or than I would consider wise, but to a great extent we have a situation in which Dr. Mattu and his supporters, and Members of the House, have opportunities to spread around allegations and even attack the credibility and good will of those involved in making the complaints, while the trust and Ministers are unable to put the other side of the case, as we would then be seen to be prejudicing the disciplinary process.
	Since Dr. Mattu was suspended, Ministers have been urged through both correspondence and pressure by the local media to intervene to bring this matter to a close. Frankly, I would be ill advised to intervene in a contractual matter between an employer and an employee, especially as NHS trusts are independent organisations. Ministers are certainly not experts in employment law and I am not party—nor would it be right for me to be so—to the detail of the allegations made against Dr. Mattu. Neither am I party to Dr. Mattu's response to those allegations or the complex legal arguments that are ongoing. This is, therefore, clearly a matter that has to be resolved between Dr. Mattu and the trust.
	Every NHS trust, as an employer, has its own procedures for suspending and disciplining doctors. That is right and proper and protects employees from Whitehall interference. Since 1990, that disciplinary procedure has been a matter for the trust, as an employer. The Department of Health has issued guidance as to what the procedure should include, and has monitored trusts to ensure that it is in place. The trust reviewed its procedures for handling suspensions in the light of that guidance, so we can be confident that its procedures are robust.
	That brings me to the suggestion that Dr. Mattu should be reinstated while the disciplinary process continues. [Interruption.] The trust has been keeping this case under review and is satisfied that grounds remain for keeping the suspension in place. I would again ask my hon. Friends, as I did the last time we had an Adjournment debate, also to think about the rights of other parties involved and their feelings in this matter.
	Ultimately, reinstatement is a matter for the trust to consider in its discussions with Dr. Mattu, but it would not be reasonable of the trust to ignore either the allegations or the rights and feelings of other parties. Nor would it be reasonable for Ministers to put pressure on the trust to do so.
	All of that leads me to conclude that this complex and difficult matter is best dealt with using the formal procedures now agreed and with all sides agreeing that Dr.Mattu's suspension is a neutral position, suggesting neither innocence nor guilt. Indeed, I understand that the trust has now agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors that the case should go through the formal disciplinary hearing, where both sides will air their views in front of an independent panel of three members, chaired by a QC. The agreed procedure allows that both parties should agree on the selection of the chair of the panel and Andrew Stafford, QC, has been agreed by both the trust and Dr. Mattu.
	According to the trust's professional disciplinary procedure, the chair of the trust's senior hospital medical staff committee is then responsible for approving the other two panel members from suggestions made by the General Medical Council's joint consultative committee. One of the panel members, Dr. Robert Bain, an experienced consultant cardiologist based in Grimsby, has been selected. I understand that a name is currently being considered for the third place on the panel. The trust is making final checks that the person recommended does not know Dr. Mattu—either personally or in a professional capacity.
	In my view, that is a sensible way forward as it will allow both parties to present the whole of their case in a fair and even-handed setting. It will also allow a proper review of the credibility of the evidence presented. Of course, it will take time—time for both sides to prepare their arguments and time for the panel to consider them. I repeat that—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.